Allahabad High Court: In a land encroachment related public interest litigation, the Single Judge Bench of J.J. Munir, J., was apprised of the conduct of respondent 6, a Gram Pradhan, who hurled abuses at and threatened the petitioner’s advocate with a false case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ ST Act’). The Court sternly warned the Pradhan against such conduct and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on him to be paid within 15 days.
Background
In the present land encroachment-related case, the Court was informed that the Gram Pradhan of Village Bahadurpur Kachhar Hetapatti, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, abused the petitioner’s advocate, asking him to withdraw from the prosecution of the present petition. Additionally, the Pradhan threatened the advocate with false implication in a case under the SC ST Act, such that it would make him forget all his skills in advocacy.
The Pradhan filed an affidavit stating that he had no personal animosity with the aggrieved advocate and he could never think about degrading any profession, much less the noble profession of law. He also undertook that he would never indulge in such an act in the future.
Analysis and Decision
Upon perusal of the transcript of the telephonic conversation between the Pradhan and the aggrieved advocate, the Court found that the Pradhan was not just personally aggressive towards the advocate but also spoke derogatory words about the legal profession.
The Court remarked that speaking in derogatory terms about the legal profession did not affect the profession alone but the entire Judicature of which the Bar was an integral part. The Court said, “There are not hundreds but thousands of remarks by Courts reminding the members of the legal profession about their duties towards the litigants, the Court and their adversaries, virtually admonishing them, but very little has been thought about the strains under which the most important part of the judicature, that is to say, the Bar, functions in order to secure justice for the litigants.”
The Court added that it was sad that the members of the Bar, who virtually work like soldiers in times of peace to secure justice for citizens, are hurled with words of criticism from all quarters for the slightest human lapse or even matters beyond their control, working as they are under a very strained judicial system. In such circumstances, for a member of the public, a litigant on the other side, to abuse an advocate over the telephone was a very serious matter which bordered on criminal contempt.
Though the Court considered referring this matter to the criminal contempt Bench, given his unconditional remorse, it held that the ends of justice would be met by administering the Pradhan a severe warning and imposing upon him costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid within 15 days. Out of this amount, Rs. 10,000 shall be paid to the aggrieved advocate and Rs. 15,000 shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority.
The Court added that upon failure in depositing cost, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Registrar General through the District Magistrate, Prayagraj.
[Bano Bibi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 4135, decided on 03-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
For the respondent: Azad Rai, C.S.C., Dhani Ram Pal, Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, and Janardan Prasad Patel
