Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu contempt petition, dealt with the punishment of advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who had been held guilty of contempt in the face of the Court by a judgment dated 12 March 2019. The Court had earlier issued notice to Nedumpara to show cause on the quantum of punishment. On the hearing date, Nedumpara initially attempted to avoid the Bench by mentioning a transfer petition and an application for recall of the contempt judgment. He cited Latin maxims and the principle that justice must be seen to be done, referring to the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices. He also requested a pass over as his lawyer was traveling from Mumbai. The Bench accommodated him and heard the matter at 2:00 PM. His lawyer, Subhash Jha, argued on Sections 14(1) and (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the Court reminded him to confine submissions to punishment. Nedumpara then intervened to deny impersonating Justice Vazifdar, one of the incidents cited in the contempt judgment. He tendered an unconditional apology by affidavit, though he maintained that some accusations were wrong. The Court considered the apology and noted that Nedumpara gave an undertaking not to browbeat any judge of the Supreme Court or Bombay High Court in the future. The Court sentenced him to three months imprisonment, suspended on condition of future good conduct, and barred him from practicing before the Supreme Court for one year. The Court also took note of two complaints filed against the judges of the Bench by the Indian Bar Association and the Human Rights Security Council, seeking permission to prosecute the judges. The Court observed that the complaints were substantially similar and that the complainants appeared to be acting in tandem with Nedumpara and another person. The order disposed of the punishment aspect of the contempt.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Punishment for Contempt in the Face of the Court - Sections 14(1) and (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The contemnor, an advocate, was held guilty of contempt in the face of the Court for his conduct during proceedings. The Court considered his unconditional apology and undertaking not to browbeat judges, and sentenced him to three months imprisonment, suspended on condition of future good conduct, and barred him from practicing before the Supreme Court for one year. (Paras 1-6) B) Contempt of Court - Apology in Contempt Proceedings - The contemnor tendered an unconditional apology by affidavit, but the Court noted that the apology was conditional as he maintained that some accusations were wrong. The Court accepted the apology in light of his undertaking and imposed a suspended sentence. (Paras 3-6) C) Contempt of Court - Bar from Practice - The Court, in addition to suspended imprisonment, barred the contemnor from practicing as an advocate before the Supreme Court of India for a period of one year from the date of the order. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
What punishment should be imposed on Shri Mathews Nedumpara for committing contempt in the face of the Court?
Final Decision
The Court sentenced Shri Mathews Nedumpara to three months imprisonment, suspended on condition that he abides by his undertaking not to browbeat any judge of the Supreme Court or Bombay High Court. Additionally, he is barred from practicing as an advocate before the Supreme Court of India for a period of one year from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Punishment for contempt
- Apology in contempt proceedings
- Suspended sentence
- Bar from practice
