Notably, the advocate is charged with criminal contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Guwahati : The Gauhati High Court has sentenced an advocate to six months’ imprisonment after he was convicted for contempt of court for making scathing remarks against a judicial officer by inter alia commenting upon her attire and comparing her to a mythical demon.
The division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Devashis Baruah, in a recent order, also prohibited advocate Utpal Goswami from appearing as an advocate in any court under the jurisdiction of the High Court for 15 days.
Notably, the advocate is charged with criminal contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
“The respondent-contemnor has not only made unfounded vitriolic attack on the integrity and impartiality of the learned judicial official concerned, but has also embarked upon character assassination of the said judicial officer.
Moreover, the petitioner had also attacked this Court by making disparaging remarks on the selection process of judicial officers by questioning the sanctity of the selection process,” the bench observed.
“The respondent- contemnor has questioned the sanctity of the selection of the judicial officer in the District Judiciary of the State by the Selection Committee of the Gauhati High Court by specifically referring to the “power of money”, “mal-administration”, “taking of undue advantages”, “unlawful relationship”, “predominance of illegal love and affections” and “other wrong practices” during “selection and appointment of judges and magistrates of the district judiciary in Assam”.
Thus, the petitioner has interfered with the administration of justice by casting aspersions on the Judges of this Court, Registry and the officials connected with the Appointment Section of this Court,” the court observed.
“Thus, the judiciary in general has been under direct attack by the respondent- contemnor. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondent-contemnor had made scathing and vitriolic attack on the judiciary in general and the concerned judicial officer in particular, which amounts to character assassination of one and all,” it observed.