P R Adikesavan vs The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras Case

P R Adikesavan vs The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Crl.A.847/2022

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No 847 of 2022

P R Adikesavan Appellant

Versus

The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents

Madras and Another

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 The appeal arises from the judgment dated 25 March 2022 of a Division

Bench of the Madras High Court convicting appellant under Section 2(c)(iii)

read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and sentencing

him two weeks of simple imprisonment.

Crl.A.847/2022

2

2 Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the

provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12 March 2021,

a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant

seeking the presence of the appellant on 26 March 2021. On 31 March 2021,

when a team of the police tried to execute the warrant, the appellant and fifty

other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the

order. The Deputy Commissioner of Police brought the incident to the notice

of the Registrar General of the Madras High Court by a letter dated 13 April

2021. On perusing the video clippings of the incident the Single Judge of the

Madras High Court by an order dated 14 July 2021, initiated contempt

proceedings against the appellant under Section 15 of the Contempt of

Courts Act 1926. The order of the Single judge is extracted below:

“ 4. This Court has also seen the entire footage starting from the time the

Police informed the respondent about the orders of this Court and

thereafter, how the respondent and one of his Advocate friend had

started questioning the Police Personnel and the respondent has not

paid heed to the Inspector of Police’s statement that he is only

executing the orders of this Court. The Police report would also state

that the respondent’s counsel Mr. Balasubramaniam had arrived and

he also started abusing the Police. The video footage shows his

presence. Thereafter, the scene has totally turned ugly and in one

footage, I saw two Advocates trying to pull out a Police Officer using

abusive and unparliamentary words. The entire scene is enacted on

the public road just outside the Court premises in full public view. This

is nothing but obstructing the administration of Justice. The act

Crl.A.847/2022

3

becomes all the more contumacious as the respondent and the

others who are members of the noble profession have committed this

act. They are bound to respect not only the dignity of this Court but

also the orders of this Court.

5. The respondent who was fully aware of the pendency of the

proceedings had deliberately not appeared before this Court

constraining the Court to issue the Non-Bailable Warrant. A prima

facie case of Contempt is made out against the respondent and Mr.

Balasubramanian, Advocate for obstructing the Police Officials from

executing the orders of this Court. This Court takes cognizance of the

act of Criminal Contempt committed by them.”

3 On 1 September 2021, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on

perusing the records found that a prima facie case has been made out

against the appellant and issued notice. On 26 October 2021, the Court

framed the following charge against the appellant:

“That, you, Mr. PR Adikesavan, Advocate and Mr. Balasubramanian,

Advocate, by your aforesaid conduct, in not permitting the execution of the

Non-Bailable Warrant issued by this Court on 31.03.2021, has interfered

with the administration of justice and has also obstructed the administration

of justice, thereby, you are charged under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of

Courts Act 1971, which is punishable under Section 12 of the Act, ibid.”

4 The proceedings were adjourned by the Division Bench on five occasions at

the behest of the appellant.1

 The Bench finally adjourned the case and listed

it on 28 February 2022. However, the appellant filed ‘sub-applications’ before

the next date of hearing. The sub-applications were listed along with the

1 The matter was adjourned on 23.11.2021, 30.11.2021, 21.12.2021, 24.1.2022, and 14.2.2022.

Crl.A.847/2022

4

contempt petition on 28 February 2022 before the Division Bench. The

appellant submitted that he had filed sub-applications and made a

representation to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court seeking the

recusal of one of the Judges of the Division Bench.

5 The appellant filed sub-applications seeking the issuance of summons to the

Single Judge for examining her as a witness in this case and another

application for one of the judges on the Division Bench to recuse from the

hearing. The appellant took back the applications from the Registry and did

not re-present them. By the impugned judgment dated 25 March 2022, the

appellant was held guilty of contempt and was sentenced to undergo two

weeks of simple imprisonment and was directed to pay a fine of Rs 2000. The

appellant was also barred from practising as an Advocate in the Madras High

Court for one year. The Court observed that on the video clipping shows that

the police did not use physical force against the appellant and that it was the

battery of lawyers who surrounded the police officials and abused them. The

Division Bench observed that the appellant attempted to evade service of the

non-bailable warrant though he :

“8…. Could have just accompanied the police along with his advocates to

the police station where after making necessary entry in the General Diary

in the nearby Flower Bazaar Police Station, he would have been produced

before PTAJ before whom he could have pleaded for release. Instead,

Crl.A.847/2022

5

Adikesavan has played fraud on Balasubramanian by not disclosing the

truth and had collected huge number of advocates to prevent the police

from performing their duty of executing the lawful order of the Court. To be

noted, whether PTAJ was correct in issuing the non-bailable warrant or not

is a question which could have been decided by the police officer, for, he is

simply required to execute all lawful orders issued by the Court.”

6 The appellant moved this Court in an appeal under Section 19 of the

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Rule XX of the Supreme Court Rules

2013. Mr K K Mani, learned senior counsel has urged that the appellant has

submitted an apology and this should be accepted.

7 The behaviour and conduct of the appellant, who is a member of the Bar has

been thoroughly contemptuous. There was a clear attempt to obstruct the

process of justice when the non-bailable warrant was sought to be served on

him by the competent police officials, which has been recorded in the video

footage. The appellant is complicit in the obstruction of justice.

8 That apart, wanton allegations have been levelled against the Single Judge of

the Madras High Court who issued the non-bailable warrant. Further, a

recusal was sought of one of the Judges hearing the proceedings thereafter

on thoroughly improper grounds. Five adjournments were sought by the

appellant before the Madras High Court, delaying the conclusion of the

proceedings only to later file sub-applications imputing allegations against

Crl.A.847/2022

6

two Judges of the Madras High Court. The appellant later also took back the

sub-applications from the registry and did not re-present them. The appellant

has no respect for the administration of justice. The finding of contempt, as

well as the sentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate. Similarly, the

debarment from practicing for a period of one year is in accordance with the

judgment of this Court in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court2

.

9 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

….....…...….......………………........J.

 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

..…....…........……………….…........J.

 [Bela M Trivedi]

New Delhi;

May 23, 2022

CKB

2 (2009) 8 SCC 106