DR. D.C. SAXENA and DR. D.C.

SAXENA,
Contemnor
Vs
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

The petitioner has initiated public interest litigation under

Article 32 of the Constitution to direct Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao,
the President of Indian National Congress and the former Prime
Minister of the country to pay a sum of Rs.8.29 lakhs and odd
said to be due to the union of Indian for use of Indian Air Force
aircraft or helicopters from October 1, 1993 to November 30,
1993. The petition was dismissed by the bench comprising the
learned CJI, Justice S.C. Sen and Justice K.S. Paripoornan. The
another petition was filed by the petitioner against CJI, A.M.
Ahmadi. The petitioner, again appearing in person, persisted to
justify the averments made against the learned CJI, Justice A.M.
Ahmadi in the writ petition. and sought for declaration [1] that
Justice A.M. Ahmadi is unfit to hold the office as Chief Justice of
India; [2] that he should be tripped of his citizenship; [3] to
direct registration of an FIR against him under various
provisions of Indian penal Code for committing forgery and
fraud and under the prevention of Corruption Act; (4) to direct
prosecution of him under the prevention of Corruption Act; (5)
to direct him to defray from his personal pocket the expenses
incurred by the petitioner in filing the two writ petitions and
the second writ petition; (6) to direct justice A.M. Ahmadi to
reimburse from his pocket to the public exchequer the entire
loss caused to the State,. as a consequence of non-payment of
the dues by Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao with interest at 18% per
annum and (7) other consequential directions. The petitioner
was held liable for criminal contempt of court as the allegations
amounted to SUPREME COURTandalization of the court. The
supreme court has made it clear that the freedom of speech
and expression is subject to Articles 19 [2],129 and 215. Under
Article 19 [2] THE RESTRICTION MAY BE IMPOSED ON the
freedom of speech and expression a person cannot be allowed
to lower the prestige of the court in the eyes of the people.
Freedom of speech and expression brings within its ambit the
corresponding duty and responsibility and puts limitation on
the exercise of that liberty. It does not give license to make
unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the
judiciary. The court has made it clear that fair criticism of the
judicial proceedings outside the pleadings of the court by the
court itself for introspective. But a party has a duty and
responsibility to plead as a part of the averment or the prayer
in the relevant portion with language befitting with the dignity
of the court and the judicial process and not in self-abuse of the
freedom of expression given under article 19[1] (a). Article 19
[2] creates an embargo on the freedom of expression and
excludes from its operation the power of contempt of court
under the act. The Supreme court being court of record, its
power under Article 129 is independent and is not subject to
article 19[1] (a). Article 19 [2] excludes the operation of article
19[1] when speech or expression is trapped in contempt of
court or tends to trench into it. When the contempt of court is
commited by a litigant, the freedom of expression being
contemptuous becomes punishable under Article 129 of the
Constitution de hors the power under section 12 of the act.

The court also made it clear that parties appearing before the
court should not make SUPREME COURTurrilous allegation or
SUPREME COURTandalisation against the judge or court.
The statement in the plaint that the CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
Gets no judicial protection not only impinges upon the
protection of the official act, ex facie it is an outrageous
tendency to lower the authority of the court and interference
with judicial administration. This cannot be the valid method
for removal of judge on the ground of miSUPREME
COURTonduct or incompetency. The statement made in the
petition are contemptuous the contempt liability cannot be
avoided by modifying the statements subsequently. Considered
from the totality of the facts and circumstances, the gravest
magnitude of the contumacious conduct of the contemnor
,thus , was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three moths with a fine or Rs. 2,000/- payable in a
period of months and in case of defaulted, to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of one month.
E.M.S. Namboodaripad Vs T.N. Nambiar

In this case the supreme court has made it clear that the
freedom of speech and expression including the press is not
absolute and restriction thereon may be imposed by the state
by making law on any of the grounds specified under article 19
(2). Contempt of court is one of the grounds specified in clause
(2) of article 19 and , therefore, the restriction on freedom of
speech and expression may be imposed, if it amounts to
contempt of court.

In this case the appellant, E.M.S. Namboodaripad who was the

chief minister of kerala at a press conference charged the
judiciary as an instrument of oppression and said that the
judges were guided and dominated by class hatred, class
interests and class prejudices and favoured the rich against the
poor. He further said that the judiciary “works against
workers”, peasants and other section of the working class. He
was held guilty of contempt of court. The court observed:
“ Judged from the angle of courts or administration of
justice ,there is not a semblance of doubt that the appellant
was guilty of contempt of court. Whether he misunderstood
the teachings of Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them
is not to much purpose. The likely effect of his words must be
seen and they have clearly the effect of lovering the prestige of
judges and courts in the eyes of the people. That he did not
intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in the
sentence to be imposed on him but cannot serve as a
justification.”
Thus, the court held that the statements of the chief
minister, E.M.S. Namboodaripad had effect of lowering
prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people and,
therefore, amounted to contempt of court. Consequently, the
court punished him for the contempt of court.
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION TIS HAZARI
COURT, DELHI
Vs
STATE OF GUJARAT

In this case an Inspector of Police named S.R. Sharma posted at

the Police station, Nadiad, arrested, assaulted and handcuffed
Mr. N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad and tied him
with a thick rope and made public exhibition of it by sending
him in the same condition to the hospital for Medical
Examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liqor in
breach of the prohibition law enforced in the state of Gujarat.
The Inspector, S.R. Sharma got the CJM photographed in
handcuffs with rope tied around his body along with the
Constables which were published in the newspaper all over the
country. The Judicial Officers, Judges and Magistrates all over
the country were in a state of shock, they felt insecure and
humiliated. A number of Bar Associations passed Resolutions
and went on strike. The Delhi Judicial Service Association, the
All India Judges Association, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and
many others approached this Court by means of telegrams and
petitions under Article 32 for saving the dignity and honour of
the judiciary. The CJM also filed an application for quashing the
two FIRs lodged against him and for directing the trial of his
complaint as State case an award of compensation.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and
examining the report of the commissioner, affidavits, etc. the
supreme court found the following facts fully proved:-
(1) Mr. N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the
Police of Nadiad was not effective in service of summons and it
had adopted an attitude of indifference to court orders.
Mr. N.L. Patel filed two complaints against Police Officers of
Nadiad Police Station and the Inspectors, and forwarded it to
the District Superintendent of Police for taking action against
them. Sharma, the Police Inspector who had by then been
posted at Nadiad reacted to the CJM's conduct by withdrawing
constables working in the courts of Magistrates on the alleged
pretext of utilizing their services for service of summons. This
led to confrontation between the local Police and the
Magistracy commenced.
(2) On 25th July, 1989, the CJM had directed the registration of
a case against 14 accused persons for misbehaviour and causing
obstruction in the judicial proceedings.
Since the accused persons had later expressed regret and
tendered unqualified apology to the court, the CJM sent a letter
to the Police Inspector, Sharma to drop proceedings.

Sharma went out of his way, to send a complaint to the High

Court through the D.S.P. saying that Patel was functioning in an
illegal manner in the judicial diSUPREME COURTharge of his du-
ties. The action of Sharma, Police Inspector was highly
irresponsible and Dhagal, D.S.P. should not have acted in a
casual manner in forwarding Sharma's letter to the Registrar of
the High Court directly.

(3) Remand period of Jitu Sport was to expire on 27th

September, 1989, the CJM directed the Police Inspector to
produce complete papers before the expiry of the period of
remand but he applied for the extension of the judicial remand.
The CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce papers on
22.9.1989, Sharma did not appear before the CJM as directed,
on the contrary he interpolated the order, sent to him
indicating that he was required to appear before the CJM on
23.9.1989, which was admittedly a holiday.
(4) On 25th September, 1989, Sharma met the CJM in his
Chamber and as a pretext requested him to come to the Police
Station to see the papers which could not be brought to the
Court, as that could satisfy him that the Police was doing the
needful for complying with the orders of the Court.

Sharma pleaded with CJM that his visit to Police Station will
remove the feeling of confrontation between the Police and
Magistracy. The CJM agreed to visit the Police Station and 961
Sharma offered to send police jeep to CJM's house for bring-
ing him to the Police Station.

(5) On 25.9.89 after the Court hours the CJM went to the
officers' club where he remained in the company of Sudhal- kar,
District Judge and Pande, Civil Judge till 8,30 p.m.

Thereafter, he went to his residence. A Police jeep came to his

residence at about 8.40 p.m. in the Officers Colony, he went on
that Police jeep to the Police Station situated at a distance of
about 2 kms. Patel had not consumed liquor before he went to
the Police Station.
(6) The Police version that Patel had consumed liquor before
coming to the Police Station and that he assaulted the Police
Inspector Sharma and misbehaved with him at the Police
Station is a cooked up story. Patel did not go to the Police
Station on foot as alleged by Sharma, instead, he went to the
Police Station in a Police jeep on Sharma's invitation. Patel was
handcuffed and tied with rope, and he received injuries at the
Police Station, he was assaulted and forced to consume liquor
after he was tied to the chair on which he was sitting, Police
Inspector Sharma, Sub-Inspector Sadia, Head Constable
Valjibhai Kalabhai and Consta- ble Pratap Singh took active part
in this episode. They actively participated in the assualt on Patel
and in forcing liquor in his mouth. They acted in collusion with
Sharma to humiliate and teach a lesson to Patel.

(7) On the direction of Sharma, Police Inspector, Patel was

handcuffed at the Police Station and he was further tied up
with a thick rope by the Police Inspector, Sharma, Sadia, Sub-
Inspector, Valjibhai Kalabhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh,
Constable. This was deliberately done in defiance of Police
Regulations and Circulars issued by the Gujarat Government
and the law declared by this Court in Prern Shankar Shukla v.
Delhi Administration., [1980] 3 SUPREME COURTC 526.
Patel had not committed any offence nor he was violent and
yet he was handcuffed and tied up with rope without there
being any justification for the same. There were seven police
personnel present at the Police Station and most of them were
fully armed while Patel was empty handed, there was
absolutely no chance of Patel eSUPREME COURTaping from the
custody or making any attempt to commit suicide or attacking
the Police Officers and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with
a thick rope like an animal with a view to humiliate and teach
him a lesson. For this wanton act there was absolutely no
justification and pleas raised by Sharma that Patel was violent
or that he would have eSUPREME COURTaped from the custody
are figment of imagination made for the purpose of the case.

962 (8) The panchnama showing the drunken state of Patel

prepared on the dictation of Sharma, Police Inspector, and
signed by Sharma as well as by two panches, M.B. Savant,
Mamlatdar and P.D. Barot, Fire Brigade Officer, Nadiad, did not
represent the correct facts, instead, it was manufac- tured for
the purpose of preparing a false case against CJM PateI,
justifying his arrest and detention.

(9) On examination at the Civil Hospital Patel's body was found

to have a number of injuries. The injury on the left eye was very
clear which appeared to have been caused by external force.
His body had bruises and abrasions which could be caused by
fists and blows. While in the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital,
Patel requested the Doctors to contact the District Judge and
inform him about the inci- dent. Dr. Parashar tried' to ring up
the District Judge but he was prevented from doing so by
Sharma and other Police Officers who were present there. Dr.
Parashar and Dr. Bhav- sar found the speech of Patel normal,
gait steady, he was neither violent, nor he misbehaved. His
blood was taken for chemical examination but the Forms used
were not according to the rules and the blood was not taken in
accordance with procedure preSUPREME COURTribed by the
Rules and the Circulars issued by the Director of Medical
Services, Gujarat. The chemical examination of the blood
sample taken in the Civil Hospital was not correctly done. The
blood sample was analysed by a teenager who was not a
testing officer within the Bombay Prohibition Act and necessary
precautions at the time of analysis were not taken. The phial in
which the blood sample had been sent to the Chemical
Examiner did not contain the seal on phial and the seal was not
fully legible. The Chemi- cal Examiner who submitted the report
holding that the blood sample of Patel contained alcohol on the
basis of the calcu- lation made by him in the report clearly
admitted before the Commission that he had never determined
the quantity of liquor by making calculation in any other case
and Patel's case was his first case.

(10) When Patel was taken to Civil Hospital handcuffed and tied
with thick rope he was deliberately made to sit outside in the
Varanda on bench for half an hour in public gaze, to enable the
public to have a full view of the CJM in that condition. A Press
photographer was brought on the SUPREME COURTene and the
Policemen posed with Patel for the press photograph. The
photographs were taken by the Press Reporter without any
objection by the Police, although a belated justification was
pleaded by the Police that Patel desired to have himself
photographed in that condition. This plea is totally false. The
photographs taken by the Press Reporter were published in
`Jan Satta' and 'Lokmat' on 26th 963 September. 1989 showing
Patel handcuffing and tied with rope and the Policemen
standing beside him. This was deliberately arranged by Sharma
to show to the public that Police weilded real power and if the
CJM took confrontation with Police he will not be spared.

(11) At the initial stage, one case was registered against Patel
by the Police under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Two Advocates
Kantawala and Brahmbhatt met Sharma at 11.30 p.m. for
securing Patel's release on bail, as offences under the
Prohibition Act were bailable. The lawyers re- quested Sharma
to allow them to meet the CJM who was in the police lock-up
but Sharma did not allow them to do so. With a view to
frustrate lawyers' attempt to get Patel released on bail. Sharma
registered another case against Patel under Sections 332 and
506 of Indian Penal Code as offence under Section 332 is non-
bailable.

(12) D.K. Dhagal, the then District Superintendent of Police,

Kheda exhibited total indifference to CJM's com- plaint
regarding the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the matter of
execution of court processes. Dhagal identified himself with
Sharma, Police Inspector who appeared to be his favourite.
Instead of taking corrective measures in the service of
processes, he became party along with Sharma in forwarding
his complaint to the High Court against Patel's order in a judicial
matter. The incident which took place in the night of 25/26
September 1989, had the blessing of Dhagal. He did not take
any immediate action in the matter instead he created an alibi
for himself alleging that he had gone to Lasundara and then to
Balasinor Police Station and stayed there in a Government Rest
House. The register at the Rest House indicating the entry
regarding his stay was manipulated subsequently by making
interpolation. On the direction of Additional Chief Secretary
(Home) Dhagal sub- mitted his report on 27.9. 1989 but in that
report he did not make any reference of handcuffing and roping
of the CJM although it was a matter of common knowledge and
there was a great resentment among the judicial officers and
the local public. Dhagal's complicity in the sordid episode is
further fortified by the fact that he permitted Sharma, the main
culprit of the entire episode to carry on investigation against
Patel in the case registered against him by Sharma and also in
the case registered by Patel against Sharma.

(13) Police Inspector Sharma had pre-planned the entire

incident and he had even arranged witnesses in advance for
preparing false case against N.L. Patel, CJM, as M.B. Sa- vant,
Mamlatdar in the 964 Police Station, immediately on the arrival
of PateI, CJM, and they acted in complicity with Sharma in
preparing the panchnama which falsely stated that Patel was
drunk. M.B.
The Court found that police officers guilty of contempt of court
and awarded punishment as under-

“S.R. Sharma, the then Police Inspector, Nadiad shall undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and he shall
pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, K.H. Sadia, Sub-Inspector, Nadiad shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and
will pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default he will undergo one
months’s simple imprisonment, Valjibhai Kalabhai Head
Constable and Pratap Singh Constable, both are convicted and
awarded simple imprisonment for a period of two months and
a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default they would undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of 15 days M.B. Savant,
Mamlatdar is convicted and awarded two month’s simple
imprisonment and affine of Rs. 1000/- and in default he would
undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. D.K. Dhagal, the
then District Superintendent of Police, Kheda is convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days. So far as other respondents against
whom notices of contempt have been issued by the court,
there is no adequate material on the record to hold them guilty
of the contempt of court, we accordingly diSUPREME
COURTharge the notices issued to them.”
The Court issued the following guidelines:-
(A) If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence, it
should be done under intimation to the District Judge or the
High Court as the case may be.

(B) If facts and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest

of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary, a technical or
formal arrest may be effected.

(C) The facts of such arrest should be immedi- ately

communicated to the District and Ses- sions Judge of the
concerned District and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(D) The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police

station, without the prior order or directions of the District &
Sessions Judge of the concerned District, if available.

(E) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer

to communication with his family members, legal advisers and
Judicial Officers, including the District & Sessions Judge.
(F) No statement of a Judicial Officer who is under arrest be
recorded nor any panchnama be drawn up nor any medical
tests be conducted except in the presence of the Legal Adviser
of the Judicial Officer concerned or another Judicial Office of
equal or higher rank, it' available.

(G) There should be no handcuffing of a Judicial Officer. If,

however, violent resistance to arrest is offered or there is
imminent need to effect physical arrest in order to avert danger
to life and limb, the person resisting arrest may be over-
powered and' handcuffed. In such case, immediate report shall
be made to the District & Sessions Judge concerned and also to
the Chief Justice of the High Court.

But the burden would be on the Police to establish necessity for

effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the Judicial Officer and
if it be established that the physical arrest and handcuffing of
the Judicial Officer was unjustified, the Police Officers causing
or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty
of miSUPREME COURTonduct and would also be personally
liable for compensation and/or damages as may be summarily
determined by the High Court.
The above guidelines are not exhaustive but these are
minimum safeguards which must be observed in case of arrest
of a judicial officer. These guidelines should be implemented by
the State Government as well as by the High Courts.

In this case several principles of law have beenlaid down by the

supreme court. The court has made it clear that SUPREME
COURT or the HIGH COURT being Court of record has inherent
power not only to punish the contempt of itself but also to
punish the contempt of the courts subordinate to it and it is the
sole and exclusive judge of what amounts to contempt of court.
The court has further observed that the categorization of the
contempt into civil or criminal under the contempt of courts
should not be taken to mean that the categories are not closed
by the provisions of the contempt of courts act.
As to the object of the contempt law , the court has made it is
clear that its object is not to safeguard or protect the dignity of
the judge or magistrate. Its object is to preserve the authority
of court to ensure an ordered life in society.
The court has also observed that independently and apart from
the contempt of courts act or other statutory law relating to
contempt, the SUPREME COURT by reason of article 129 and
the HIGH COURT by reason of article 215 have inherent power
to punish for contempt and since this power has been given by
the constitution, it cannot be taken away or restricted by any
law made by the legislature.
The SUPREME COURT has held that it can punish for the
contempt of all the courts subordinate to it, i.e., it can punish
for the contempts of the HIGH COURT and also of the inferior
or subordinate courts. The SUPREME COURT has observed that
while construing article 129 it is not permissible to ignore the
significance and impact of the inclusive power conferred on the
SUPREME COURT. Since the SUPREME COURT is designed by
the constitution as acourt of record and as the founding fathers
were aware that a superior court on record has inherent power
to indict a person for the contempt of itself as well as of courts
inferior to it, the expression “including” was deliberately
inserted in the article. Article 129 is recognized the existing
inherent power of a court of record in its full plenitude
including the power to punish for the contempt of inferior
courts. If article 129 is suSUPREME COURTeptible to two
interpretations. It is better to prefer the interpretation which
would preserve the inherent jurisdiction of this court being the
superior court of record, to safeguard protect the subordinate
judiciary which forms the very backbone of administration of
justice. The subordinate courts administer justice at the
grassroot level, their protection is necessary to preserve the
confidence of people in the efficacy of courts and to ensure
unsullied flow of justice at its base level. The HIGH COURT being
a court of record has inherent power in respect of contempt of
itself as well as of its subordinate courts even in the absence of
any express provision in any act. The SUPREME COURT being
the apex court of the country and superior court of record
should possess the same inherent jurisdiction and power for
taking action for contempt of itself as well as for the contempt
of subordinate and inferior courts. The contention that HIGH
COURT has the power of superintendence over the subordinate
courts under article 227 of the constitution, therefore, HIGH
COURT has power to punish for the contempt of subordinate
courts and since the SUPREME COURT has no supervisory
jurisdiction over the HIGH COURT or other subordinate courts it
does not possess powers which the HIGH COURT have under
articles 215 is miSUPREME COURTonceived. Art 227 confers
supervisory jurisdiction on the HIGH COURT and in exercise of
that powers. HIGH COURT may correct judicial orders of
subordinate courts, in addition to that ,the HIGH COURT has
administrative control over the subordinate courts. The
SUPREME COURT power to correct judicial order of the
subordinate courts under articles 136 is much wider and more
effective than that contained under art 227. Absence of
administrative power of superintendence over the HIGH COURT
and subordinate court does not affect the SUPREME COURT
wide power of judicial superintendence of all courts in India.
Once there is power of judicial superintendence, all courts
which orders are amenable to correction by the SUPREME
COURT would be subordinate courts and, therefore, the
SUPREME COURT also possess similar inherent power as the
HIGH COURT has under article 215 of the constitution with
regard to the contempt of subordinate courts. The jurisdiction
of superior court of record to punish contempt of subordinate
courts was not founded on the court’s administrative power of
superintendence, instead of the inherent jurisdiction was
conceded to superior court of record on the premise of its
judicial power to correct the errors of subordinate courts.
Since the SUPREME COURT has judicial
superintendence and control over all the courts and tribunals
functioning in the entire territory of the country, it has a
corresponding duty to protect and safeguard the interest of the
inferior courts to ensure the flow of the stream of justice in the
courts without any interference or attack from any quarter.
Subordinate and inferior courts do not have adequate power
under the law to protect themselves, therefore, it is necessary
that the SUPREME COURT should protect them. Under the
constitutional SUPREME COURTheme the SUPREME COURT has
special role in the administration of justice and the powers
conferred on its articles 32,136,141and142 from part of basic
structure of the constitution. The amplitude of the power of the
SUPREME COURT under these article of the constitution cannot
be curtailed by the law made by the central or states
legislature. If the contention raised on behalf of the
comtemners is accepted, the courts all over india will have no
protection from the SUPREME COURT. No doubt, the HIGH
COURT have power to punish for the contempt of subordinate
courts but that does not affect or abridge the inherent powers
of the SUPREME COURT under article 129. The SUPREME
COURT and the HIGH COURT both exercise concurrent
jurisdiction under the constitutional SUPREME COURTheme in
matters relating to the fundamental rights under articles 32 and
226 of the constitution and, therefore, the SUPREME COURT
jurisdiction and power to take action for contempt of
subordinate court would not be inconsistent to any
constitutional SUPREME COURTheme. There may be occasions
when attack on the judges and magistrates of subordinate
courts may have wide repercussion, throughout the country, in
that situation it may not be possible for a HIGH COURT to
contain the same, as a result of which the administration of
justice in the country may be paralysed, in that situation the
SUPREME COURT must interfere to ensure smooth functioning
of courts. Ordinarily the HIGH COURT would protect the
subordinate court from any onslaught on their independence,
in exceptional cases, when extraordinary situation may prevail
affecting the administration of justice or where the entire
judiciary is affected, the SUPREME COURT may directly take
cognizance of contempt of subordinate courts. The SUPREME
COURT has made it clear that no matter is beyond the
jurisdiction of a superior court of record, unless it is expressly
shown to be so under the provisions of the constitution. In the
absence of any express provision in the constitution the
SUPREME COURT being court of record has jurisdiction in every
matter and if there be any doubt, the court has power to
determine its jurisdiction. If such determination is made by the
HIGH COURT, the same would be subject to appeal to the
SUPREME COURT but if the jurisdiction is determined by this
court, it would be final.
 3 : BENCH BARRELATION

The Bar and Bench play an important role in the administration of justice. The judges
administer the law with the assistance of the lawyers. The lawyers are officers of the
court. They are expected to assist the court in the administration of justice. Actually
lawyers collect materials relating to the case and thereby assist the court in arriving at a
correct judgment. The legal profession has been created not for private gain but for
public good. It is a branch of the administration of justice. It is a partner with the
judiciary in the administration of justice.

Since the lawyers are officers of the court, they are required to maintain towards the court
respectful attitude bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential foe
the survival of the society. During the presentation of the case and while acting
otherwise before the court an advocate is required to conduct himself with dignity and
self respect. He should not influence the decision of the court by any illegal or improper
means. Besides, he is prohibited the private communication with the judge relating to a
pending case. He should use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from
restoring to unfair practices in relation to the court. An advocate should not consider
himself mere mouthpiece of the client and should exercise his own judgment in the use of
restrained language during arguments in the court.

Besides, the court acts on the statements of the advocates and therefore the advocates are
under obligation to be absolutely fair to the court. They are required to make accurate
statements of facts and should not twist them. An advocate is under duty not to misguide
the court.
An advocate should not be servile and in case there is proper ground for complaint
against a judicial officer, it is not only his right but also duty to submit his grievances to
the proper authorities. He should always bear in mind that he is an officer of the court
and part of the administration of justice. If the courts or judges are not respected, the
whole administration of justice, of which he is a part, will result in the complete death of
the rule of law. Many duties of the lawyers to the court are confined by the Bar Council
of India. The breach of such duties is taken as professional misconduct and it is punished
in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act. Actually, self restrain and
respectful attitude towards the court, presentation of correct facts and law with a balance
mind and without over statement, suppression, distortion or embellishments are requisites
of good advocacy. It is the duty of lawyer to uphold the dignity and decorum of the court
and must not do anything which brings the court itself in to dispute.

Mutual respect is necessary for the maintenance of the cordial relations between the
bench and the bar.

The judges play important role in the maintenance of rule of law which is essential for the
existence of the orderly society. It has rightly been stated by Mr. C.L. Anand that there is
no office in the state of such powers as that of judge. Judges hold power which is
immensely greater than that of any other functionary. The citizen’s life and liberty,
reputation and property, personal and domestic happiness are all subject to the wisdom of
the judges and hang on their decision. Where judicial power becomes corrupt, liberty
expires, no security is left of life, reputation and property and no guarantee is left of
personal or domestic happiness. A strong impartial and capable, judiciary is the greatest
need of a state.
On account of such importance of the judges in the maintenance of the orderly society, it
is the duty of the lawyers to play constructive role in the administrative of justice. They
must be respectful to the judges but at the same time, in case of proper ground for
complaint against a judge, they should submit the complaint to the proper authority in
proper manner.

A judge must be impartial and must do everything for justice and nothing for himself or
for his friend or for his sovereign. A judge must not allow himself to be subjected to any
influence other than influence of the law and justice of the cause. He must discharge his
duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. A judge should possess calm temper.
He should repress irritability and passion. He should always bear in mind the statement
of George Sharswood that where passion is allowed to prevail, the judgment is dethroned.
He should have patience and gravity of hearing. He should allow the advocate or party
the fullest opportunity to present his case. When the judge does not allow the advocate to
present his client’s case as he considers it best, the counsel owes to his client to protest
against it.