The Allahabad High Court recently ordered initiation of contempt of court proceedings against a lawyer for calling a judge biased and dishonest during the hearing of a bail plea [Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant v State of UP]..Justice Siddharth also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to consider advocate Harish Chandra Shukla’s conduct and decide whether it was consonance with the conduct prescribed for the lawyers.“The registry of this court is directed to place the record of this case before the appropriate court for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate as per section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act within a week,” the Court ordered..Advocate Shukla was representing the complainant in the bail plea of an accused in a murder case. On May 16, he had sought adjournment to make “legal and constitutional submissions” to respond to the arguments made by senior counsel representing the accused.However, the Court had rejected the request and pointed out that a number of adjournments had already been granted in the case on the request of the complainant side. However, Shukla was granted liberty to file written submissions along with case laws. .A day later, Shukla filed written submissions in which he accused the court of bias.“It is all stand of the counsel for the informant that throughout approach of this Hon'ble Court was biased and not honest. It is all belief of the counsel for the informant that this Hon’ble Court consisting of his Lordship is yet not honest in the matter and is wholly biased,” he wrote. In the order passed on May 28, the Court took objection to the submissions. “A perusal of the aforesaid written submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the informant shows that he has not given any specific reply to the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Rather, he has made allegations against the court that court is biased and dishonest. He has no faith in the court consisting of his Lordship,” it said..Further, the Court recorded that the bail application has been pending since April 2024. The informant earlier had engaged another counsel, who avoided hearing of the plea for over one year, the Court noted.“When this court on the request of counsel for the applicant directed the application to be listed peremptorily on 12.05.2025, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate appeared on 12.05.2025 and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant. He stated that he is not prepared and the matter was adjourned on his request for 16.05.2025. Counsel for the applicant requested that let the matter be listed peremptorily again since on the next date again informant’s counsel may not appear or file his illness slip to get the case adjourned, hence the case was listed peremptorily on 16.05.2025 among top-10 cases,” it added..Considering the written submissions and the lawyer’s conduct, the Court said the allegations require consideration by a Division Bench hearing contempt of court matters. Accordingly, the Court ordered the registry to register a contempt of court case against Shukla.It also recused from hearing the bail plea and asked the registry to place it before another bench after obtaining orders from the Chief Justice..Senior Advocate Kamal Krishna with advocate Rakesh Kumar Rathore represented the accused (petitioner).Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla represented the complainant.[Read Order]
