LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 353Decided 12 Mar 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 191 of 2019
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman · Justice Vineet Saran

Background

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the practice and constitutional validity of designating lawyers as "Senior Advocates" under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961: in substance, an attempt to seek a second review of the Court's earlier judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766, after a first review petition had already been dismissed. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel, Shri Mathews Nedumpara, made disparaging remarks about judges designating only their relatives as Senior Advocates, repeatedly invoked the name of a senior lawyer without relevance and despite being cautioned, and made further intemperate statements in court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court dismissed the writ petition itself on the merits, holding that an Article 32 petition cannot be used to seek a second review of the Supreme Court's own judgment, that a second review is in any event barred by the Supreme Court Rules, and that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act (governing Senior Advocate designations) is not unconstitutional. Separately, the Court held that counsel's conduct, including the remarks made in court and a documented history of similar conduct before the Bombay High Court and Debt Recovery Tribunals, amounted to contempt in the face of the Court, and issued a separate notice to him to show cause as to what punishment should be imposed, directing that the judgment be circulated to every High Court and the Bar Councils.

Lesson Learnt

A Supreme Court judgment cannot be reopened through a fresh writ petition dressed up as a constitutional challenge once ordinary review remedies are exhausted, and lawyers who behave disrespectfully or abusively toward the Bench in open court can face contempt proceedings even separate from the outcome of the underlying case.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case