- (1.) In a proceeding initiated suo motu [registered as Writ Petition (Criminal) No.796 of 2007], the Delhi High Court found the contemnor guilty of suborning the court witness in a criminal trial in which he represented the accused as the senior advocate. The High Court, thus, held him guilty under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in exercise of the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India the High Court prohibited him, by way of punishment, from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the courts subordinate to it for a period of four months from the date of the judgment dated August 21, 2008 leaving him, however, free to carry on his other professional work e.g. consultations, advices, conferences, opinions etc. The High Court further held that the contemnor had forfeited his right to be designated as a senior advocate and recommended to the full court to divest him of the honour. In addition, the High Court also imposed on him a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
(2.) The contemnor brought the matter to this Court in appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. This Court by judgment and order dated July 29, 2009 (R. K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High, 2009 8 SCC 106) affirmed the finding of the High Court as to the guilt of the contemnor. But so far as the punishment is concerned, this Court took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment given to the contemnor was wholly inadequate. In paragraphs 272 and 273 of the judgment, this Court held and observed as follows:- "272. The action of the appellant in trying to suborn the court witness in a criminal trial was reprehensible enough but his conduct before the High Court aggravates the matter manifold. He does not show any remorse for his gross misdemeanour and instead tries to take on the High Court by defying its authority. We are in agreement with Mr. Salve and Mr. Subramanium that punishment given to him by the High Court was wholly inadequate and incommensurate to the seriousness of his actions and conduct. We, accordingly, propose to issue a notice to him for enhancement of punishment. 273. We also hold that by his actions and conduct the appellant has established himself as a person who needs to be kept away from the portals of the court for a longer time. The notice would therefore require him to show cause why the punishment awarded to him should not be enhanced as provided under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. He would additionally show cause why he should not be debarred from appearing in courts for a longer period. The second part of the notice would also cure the defect in the High Court order in debarring the appellant from appearing in courts without giving any specific notice in that regard as held in the earlier part of the judgment."
(3.) Accordingly, this Court directed for issuing a notice of enhancement of punishment to him and directing him to file a show cause within eight weeks from the date of service of the notice.;