In a dramatic turn of events, the Karnataka High Court recently took action against a lawyer who, in response to the dismissal of an application, engaged in disrespectful behavior towards the court. Justice KS Hemalekha initiated contempt proceedings against the lawyer who, after the rejection of the application, not only threw files in dismay but also made derogatory comments directed at the court.
The court highlighted the lawyer’s rude behavior on multiple occasions, stating that despite previous instances of arrogance, the court had accommodated his presence. The order noted that the petitioner’s counsel had consistently prolonged the proceedings by filing numerous applications, as evident from the order sheet.
Expressing serious concern, the court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings based on various grounds, including the lawyer’s misbehavior, arrogance, backtalk, and violation of court rules. The court emphasized that such actions undermine the dignity of the court and hinder the administration of justice.
“The act and conduct of the advocate tend to undermine the dignity of the Court and hinder the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice. The cumulative acts of the advocate would amount to undermine the dignity and majesty of the Court apart from interference with the court’s normal proceedings and procedures,” the order stated.
In response to these actions, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to take necessary steps to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate M. Veerabhadraiah under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court requested the Registrar to present this order before the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
This incident unfolded on February 5, following the court’s dismissal of a plea by Annadurai, who aimed to counter a caveat plea submitted on behalf of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). The BEL’s caveat petition, filed by its General Manager, sought notification of any case against BEL. The petitioner’s application was rejected, accompanied by a ₹10,000 cost to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. Subsequently, the court instructed the petitioner to argue the main dispute on merits, leading to the lawyer’s objection and disruptive behavior.
