Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: February 06, 2022 at 15:38 IST
On Friday, the Gujarat High Court had set down the Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the Lawyer in 2008, who alleged the Court of being religiously biased.
The Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R Mehta was considering the suo moto contempt Case when the Respondent had Accused Justice KS Javeri of being biased towards a specific religion in December 2006.
The matter when brought before the Bench, it sought an unconditional apology as the previous, the Affidavit of apology submitted by the Advocate was not “happily worded”.
However, the Court stated that it has unpleasant feeling while proceeding against a Bar member but nonetheless it will proceed when the stream of justice gets contaminated.
The Court then Ordered the Lawyer to submit an “unconditional apology” and taking back all of his statements instantly on the same day.
The matter was finally let off when the new Affidavit of apology was submitted by the Lawyer in Court on Friday.
The Affidavit read as, “I submit that I have always adhered to my abundant duty to respect the Court without fail during the long span of my 23 years of practice but the incident dated 04 December, 2006 was unintended. I have never undermined the honour of the Court and I feel deep remorse by tendering unconditional apology”.
The Court upon observing the Affidavit being bonafide and appeared without any ill – intentions and proceeded to drop the Case.
The Bench Ordered, “We are considered view that the said remorse expressed by him is genuine and honest and as such, continuation of the present contempt proceedings would not arise”.
Although, the High Court before disposing the Case warned the Counsel to exercise carefully and be caution enough in the future advising him that lawyer must espouse others’ causes and not end up fighting their own.
The Criminal Contempt Proceedings were commenced in 2008 on the basis of the derogatory and defamatory statements made with an intend to damage the dignity of the Court and appalled the proceedings of the Court.