ORDER
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.
1. It was on 12-12-1997 that the Court passed the following order, which led to the nomination of this Bench on 5-1-1998 :-
“I direct the Registry to place the matter before My Lord the Chief Justice, either for hearing or for listing the case for hearing before an appropriate bench and to take proper action in the matter.”
2. An application for grant of anticipatory bail to one Niranjan Soni, (numbered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 1140/97) was moved before this Court by Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate, which, after hearing him, was rejected on 28-3-1997. Subsequent thereto, another application, (numbered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 4743/97) was moved in this Court for grant of anticipatory bail to the said Niranjan Soni by another Advocate Shri Pradeep Kumar Verma, This application was also rejected on merit by the Court on 17-10- 1997 concluding :
“To conclude the earlier part of the order, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant.”
From the order dated 17-10-1997, it appears that before the dictation of the order in Misc. Criminal Case No. 4743/97 could be completed, the counsel in the case i.e. Shri P. K. Verma took a turn for leaving the Court and his movement for going out of the Court room while the order was being dictated, engaged the attention of the Court and led to call him back, as such an act of impertinence was not appreciated by the Court and he was told firmly that it was not fair on his part to leave the Court when the order was being dictated, and as the Court did not like such a conduct of the lawyer, the Court told him that such a bad practice may lend him in a bad position whereat, Shri Verma responded in the manner which was not befitting the dignity of the Court as well as his own as an Officer of the Court. The reply as given by Shri Verma was that “in the profession he is ready to face any consequences.” It is this reply which has culminated to proceedings before this Court in relation to Shri Verma.
Heard the learned counsel Shri Jagdish Tiwari, Advocate, who appeared for Shri P. K. Verma.
3. Shri Jagdish Tiwari, at the outset, tendering apology on behalf of Shri P. K. Verma and himself, submitted that though the said utterance made by his client Shri P. K. Verma that in the profession, he is ready to face any consequences was not made to erode on the dignity of this august institution of justice though it was not befitting the dignity of the Court. He never meant anything except that it was made in a light vein. He, laying emphatic stress, submitted that it was not with any intention either to exhibit disrespect to the Court or to be disgraceful to the Court. He also submitted that since Shri Verma, who was a practitioner of District Court, was not acclimatized to the atmosphere of this Court which, of course, is different than that prevailing in the subordinate Courts. Before his joining the High Court bar at Jabalpur, he was practising at Bilaspur where he practised for about a decade i.e. from 1985 to 1995. In the District Court, it was not the practice of dictating the order in the presence of the counsel, as, in the subordinate Courts, orders are invariably dictated when the counsel concerned has left the Court room after advancing the arguments, but it is not so in the High Court. Here, the orders are usually dictated then and there, after the arguments are over. It is this practice which led him to leave the Court after concluding the arguments and his such action of leaving the Court was in good faith and was not with any intention to exhibit any disrespect to the Court. It was in good faith on account of unawareness to the practice of this Court and this ignorance led to a situation taking a serious turn. He stated in all sincerity and fairness that Shri Verma is not a nasty lawyer but since he has shifted to this Court recently, it may take some time for him to come up to the level of the standard of this Court and in knowing the grace to conduct himself in this Court and to know the Court etiquette.
4. It is a part of the Court etiquette of this Court that when the order is being dictated in the open Court, the concerned lawyer is supposed to stay in the Court room till the order is completed and it is for two reasons :-
(1) Firstly, the lawyer would be in a position to point out to the Court if there is any error in relation to any fact, in the order; and
(2) Secondly, if the Court wants to change its mind, then, in such a situation, both the lawyer would be available to the Court and after hearing them, there may be modification in the order and they would be knowing the actual order passed.
It is also a part of the Court etiquette that the concerned lawyer should not leave the Court until the dictation of the order is over. In case any necessity arises for leaving the Court while the order is being dictated, then, the junior or assisting lawyer is supposed to remain present and the concerned lawyer may leave the Court only with the leave of the Court. Likewise, the two lawyers whose case is last heard during pre-lunch session of the Court or post lunch session of the Court, they, as a part of the etiquette of the Court, are supposed to stay in the Court room till the Court rises.
5. Here, it may be noticed that a smaller thing assumed wider dimensions. So far as lawyer is concerned, no lawyer can ever be in an advantageous position by exhibiting improper conduct, deviating from observing proper etiquette, as, such a conduct sometime may lead to the formation of opinion by the Judge against the lawyer which may affect him prejudicially on the principle “that it is not the person who holds the opinion it is the opinion which holds a person.” Accordingly, if a lawyer conducts himself in such a manner so to get an adverse opinion formed against him, would be the person interfering in the course of justice. Apart form this, it is the duty of the lawyer to conduct himself in a dignified manner, in consonance of the dignity of the Court irrespective of the result of the case. It is an old advice to the lawyer that it is better to lose a case than to lose a Judge.
6. Shri Verma was issued a show-cause notice by this Court for explaining his conduct as to what he meant by the statement that “he is ready to face any consequences” and was allowed seven days’ time for filing reply. It was pointed out that the Court advised Shri Verma for filing reply as the Court was of tentative opinion that the matter needs to be referred to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh for drawing proper proceedings and for talcing appropriate action against him. Thus, the stage of the matter for showing cause was as to why his case be not referred to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh for drawing disciplinary proceedings and for taking appropriate action against him.
6. One wrong led to another wrong. Consequent thereupon Shri Verma filed his memo of appearance in the office of the Registry on 22-10-1997, as he was under the impression that since under the Court order dated 17-10- 1997, he was allowed a week’s time for filing reply and the time so allowed, was not expired and the case would be posted after the time allowed by the Court is expired. It was on account of it that he failed to check up the case in the cause list of the Court which eventually resulted in his non-appearance before the Court on 22-10-1997 on which date the case was posted.
Learned Counsel Shri Jagdish Tiwari states that Shri Verma filed his reply in the Registry. He submitted that the order dated 22-10-1997 makes it clear that the order dated 17-10-1997 was not for initiating the contempt proceedings against Shri Verma but the order contained a prima facie opinion of the Court that the matter was such which needs to be referred to the Bar Council for proper action in respect of commission of professional misconduct or other misconduct.
7. In the said memo of appearance Shri Verma wrote “I do hereby declare that I am filing this memo of appearance as a mark of my presence in the High Court in response to the notice issued by the High Court, dated 18- 10-1997 and shall file reply to the notice afterwards.
8. That the Court on 22-10-1997 seeing the above endorsement in the memo of appearance, got surprised as to how a memo of appearance in itself can be treated as an application for recording the presence and the memo of appearance is filed by the counsel and not by the party. Here Shri Verma’s capacity was not that of a counsel representing any party to the lis. The Court, thus, observed, “that this act on the part of the counsel is not proper. It is nothing short of the contempt; and at this stage before taking any action against the counsel, I thought it proper to have assistance of Shri R. S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General and Shri P. D. Gupta, learned Government Advocate. They unequivocally and jointly made a submission that in such a case a bailable warrant can be issued to secure the attendance of the defaulter.
This act of Shri Verma in making endorsement in the memo of appearance itself indicates that he was deficient in the knowledge in regard to the rules of the Court, in regard to the Conduct and Etiquette Rules and in regard to the rules framed by the High Court under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He is supposed to know that the memo of appearance is not an application and no endorsement can be made thereon so to constitute any prayer or to communicate anything to the Court. The proper way of making prayer to the Court is to move an application. The memo of appearance is not for appearance of a person to whom show cause notice is issued. It can be filed on behalf of a party to the list by the counsel. The Rules framed under Section 34 of the Advocates Act speaks about it. As is submitted, Shri Verma did not appear before the Court, not on account of his avoidance to the appearance before the Court but because of his unawareness about the posting of the case on 22-10-1997 and as it was not the date fixed in the case for his appearance before the Court, as one week’s time as allowed by the Court, for filing the reply, did not expire on 22-10-1997. However, it was at this stage that a direction was issued to the Registry by the Court for issuance of another notice to Shri Verma for appearing personally before the Court on 3- 11-1997 making it clear that his failure to appear before the Court would be taken to be an act of disobedience to the orders passed by the Court, and would tantamount to commission of contempt of lawful authority of the Court making it clear that if Shri Verma does not appear on 3-11-1997, then the Court may issue a bailable warrant to ensure his presence before the Court.
Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General was required to be present before the Court on 3-11-1997 to assist the Court in the matter.
On 3-11-1997, the case was posted and Shri Verma appeared before the Court along with his counsel Shri Jagdish Tiwari who prayed for granting time for filing reply to the said show-cause notice. Shri Tiwari was asked by the Court to explain the conduct of Shri Verma as directed earlier and also for explaining his conduct in submitting the memo of appearance in his case under his signature, as a counsel who becomes a party, is not entitled to file his own memo of appearance. The case was accordingly directed for being posted for hearing on 11-11-1997 and time for reply was allowed upto 10-11-1997.
Learned counsel Shri Jagdish Tiwari who is an Advocate of this Court, realizing that the reply filed by Shri Verma earlier, was not proper and as such, he prayed for granting permission for withdrawal of the reply and for allowing time for filing reply. On this prayer, no order was passed either way.
That on 11-11-1997, reply was filed and the order dated 12-12-1997, it was stated that “In paragraphs 7 and 9, certain allegations have been made against the Court, are mentioned. In para 8, it is stated that “The Counsel at once turned towards the Court bowed again and caught hold of wooden plank to steady himself >and apologised to Hon’ble Court” and it appears that Mr. Tiwari made a prayer for filing an application for withdrawal of the said reply and for filing another reply as this reply should not have been given consideration not being befitting the dignity of the Court and Majesty of justice.
The subsequent developments were unpalatable. It is also to be noticed that after the office had issued a notice to Shri P. K. Verma, he himself issued a notice to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) asking for an explanation from him extending threat that if he does not explain his conduct, then, he would be compelled to take suitable civil and criminal action against him. This action of Shri Verma was not appreciated by the Court and the Court observed that “It is to be seen from the records that this Court did not propose to issue a notice of contempt against Shri Verma, but by some bona fide mistake, the Section Officer had issued the contempt notice to Shri Verma”. It goes without saying that from a person of a status of a practising lawyer of the High Court, what is minimal expectation is the decent conduct and behaviour. In case he received a wrong notice, then the appropriate course was that he should have brought the same to the notice of the Additional Registrar(J) or to the notice of the Court for proper redressal of grievance and the notice wrongly issued would have been withdrawn. The practice of issuing notice to the officers of the Registry, who work under the directions of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court, is not proper and such a practice needs to be depricated strongly and curbed before it may assume dimensions affecting the judicial administration. This issuance of the notice in itself may tantamount to causing of hindrance in the administration of justice and may provide a foundation for drawing proceedings for contempt. This Court further observed in the said order dated 12-12-1997 that “However, considering that Shri Verma is only having a practice of 2 1/2 years in this Court, no action is proposed to be taken on his notice dated 5-11-1997”. From this fact, it appears that the Court while deprecating the act, condoned the same and as such, it is not the matter to be considered now.
The matter remained pending on 11-11-1997 and was adjourned for 12- 11-1997 on which date, a mention was made to the Court for adjournment of the case as Shri Verma was not feeling well and the case was adjourned for 18-11-1997, on which date, no reply was filed. Learned counsel again prayed for withdrawal of the earlier reply dated 11-11-1997 and stated frankly in the Court that Shri Verma was very sorry for all that happened, which should not have taken place. He actually repented.
It is not necessary to narrate or to dilate all these details.
The sacredness of the relationship of the members of the Bench and the Bar is not to be forgotten. The members of the Bar are integrated part of system of judicial administration and owe a duty towards the Court, which duty is the statutory obligation for being fair and dignified to the Court.
“The standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette Rules” governing the Advocate’s Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette have been framed by the Bar Council of India. The preamble of these rules states that an Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non- professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. Without prejudice to be generality of the foregoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interest of his client and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides, yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as denial of the existence of others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned. Rule 1 says that an Advocate shall, during the presentation of his case, and while otherwise acting before a Court, conduct himself with dignity and self- respect. He shall also maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community. Apart from this, it is also an obligation on the part of an Advocate that he shall not influence the decision of the Court by any illegal or improper means. Private communications with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden. He is also supposed to use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. He is supposed to refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. The Advocate is not the mouth piece of his client and he has to exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleading and using intemperate language during arguments in Court. He is also required to appear in Court, at all times, only in the prescribed dress and his appearance shall always be presentable. He is also supposed to maintain the sanctity of his band and gown and is not supposed to wear band and gown in public places other than in Courts except on such ceremonial occasions, and at such places as the Bar Council of India or the Court may prescribe. The Advocate is prohibited from standing as a surety or to certify the soundness of a surety. The profession of law is not the profession unregulated, uncontrolled and unguided.
Earlier the professional law was controlled and guided and regulated by the High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. The power which, prior to the coming in force of Advocates Act, 1961 was being exercised by the High Court in regard to the Advocates was transferred to the Bar Council; and as such, the Bar Council in fact is discharging the functions of the High Court. It is a prestigious body of the Advocates and is the only body where the conduct of the Advocates is looked, watched, controlled, regulated and punished by the Advocates who are their representatives in the Bar Council.
List I Seventh Schedule Entry 78 of the Constitution has provided that the Parliament can frame law as to the persons entitled to practice before the High Courts and the Entry 77 relates to the framing of the law by the Parliament as to the persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court; and the Parliament, exercising this power, framed Section 34 in the Advocates Act, 1961 authorising the High Court and the Supreme Court in this regard for framing rules as to the persons who are entitled to practice in the High Court and in the Supreme Court. In exercise of this power the High Court framed the Rules vide notification No. 1546-III-I-5-57 Ch. 18 dated 28th February, 1967 published in M. P. Rajpatra Part 4(Ga) dated 23rd August, 1968, Page 691 which are not exhaustive. Rule 2 says that “save as otherwise provided for in any law for the time being in force, no advocate shall be entitled to appear, plead or act for any person in any Court in any proceeding unless the advocate files an appointment in writing signed by such persons or his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment and signed by the advocate in token of its acceptance or the advocate filed a memorandum of appearance in the form prescribed by the High Court. But this does not apply to the person who has not appeared in the capacity as an Advocate to conduct the case of his client and would also not apply to the person who appears before the Court as an amicus curiae. It also provides that an Advocate who is not on the roles of Advocates of the Bar Council of the State in which the Court is situated, shall not appear, act or plead in such court, unless he files an appointment along with an advocate who is on the roll of such State Bar Council and who is ordinarily practising in such Court. Rule 14 also states that no advocate who has been found guilty of contempt of court shall be permitted to appear, act, or plead in any Court unless he has purged himself of contempt.
Thus, the Conduct and Etiquette Rules give a sufficient guidance to the lawyers as to how they are supposed to conduct themselves before the Court so to act in a manner advancing the preservation of the dignity of the Court.
It may be noticed that the Constitution has provided for appointment of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges from amongst the practising advocates and the purpose is obvious that they apart from being the persons interested in the dignity of the institution, in the dignity of the members of the Bar and in the fair administration of justice, would also be interested in the proper growth of the members at the Bar and for their proper and orderly growth they would be actively interested.
The present is the case, which exhibits that a very petty thing relating to the Etiquette led to the explosive situation.
However, looking to the circumstances of the case and the background and having in mind the sincere apology tendered by Shri P. K. Verma and the submissions advanced by Shri Jagdish Tiwari, who himself felt it bad, I am of the view that it is not a matter which requires any reference to the Bar Council for drawing proceedings for professional misconduct or other misconduct against Shri P. K. Verma, as he is a young man having bright future ahead. It is expected that he will come up to the status of the High Court and while finding that no action is necessary against him, I issue a caution to him which would serve useful purpose and will have therapeutical effect on him for regulating himself in a dignified manner befitting to the dignity of this Court.
In view of this, no action is proposed. The proceedings are shelved.