[2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2/2023 Harun Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri A.K. Jain Advocate 2. Advocate Shri Manish Sharma ----Respondents-Contemnors For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankalp Vijay for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 16/01/2026 REPORTABLE 1. This Criminal Contempt Petition was registered after receiving a written Reference dated 19.01.2023, sent by the then Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, whereupon notices to two Advocates, (i) Mr. A.K. Jain, and (ii) Mr. Manish Sharma, were issued vide order dated 03.02.2023. 2. In response to the notices, both Advocates have submitted their separate replies, denying the allegation of scandalizing the Court and contended that they have high respect towards the Majesty of Court and the process of administration of justice. Both have pointed out that Reference has been made by the concerned Judge arbitrarily and just to settle his personal grudges because respondent No.1 made a complaint against the Presiding Officer and respondent No.2 filed his affidavit in support of such [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] complaint, hence, being prejudiced, Presiding Officer tried to make out a case of criminal complaint against both of them, based on drawing an order-sheet dated 18.11.2022 and Reference for contempt has been forwarded after expiry of two months on 19.01.2023. 3. We perused the record and received assistance of the learned Advocates, representing both sides. 4. It appears that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, was seized with the disputes raised by different workmen against the Management, Maharani Gayatri Devi School, Jaipur, and as many as seven cases were pending before him. In these disputes, the Management, MGD School was represented through Advocate Mr. A.K. Jain. Another Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma is Associate of Mr. A.K. Jain and he usually puts in appearance before the Presiding Officer in these disputes, for and on behalf of Mr. A.K. Jain. 5. It has been mentioned in the Reference note that, duo Advocates did not allow the Court to proceed with these cases for their logical conclusion with an ulterior motive to cause delay and also indulged into whataboutery and unleashed threat to make a false complaint against him. Learned Presiding Officer, while referring to an incident, allegedly occurred in his Court Room on 18.11.2022, stated that both Advocates literally hijacked the Court from passing the judgment in these cases and their conduct unleashing the threat, demeaning and scandalizing the Court is contemptuous in the eye of law and fall under the ambit of Criminal Contempt as per provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] 6. A perusal of order-sheet(s) dated 18.11.2022, drawing in two cases LCR No. 195/2017 titled as Kailash Chand Vs. MGD School and LCR No. 196/2017 titled as Rahul Meena Vs. MGD School, goes to show that same is handwritten and stipulates that at about 01:30 PM, Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, representing Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate, walked in the Court Room along with some other Advocates pointing out that Mr. A.K. Jain has made a complaint against you before the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, so you should desist yourself from proceeding in these matters. The order-sheet(s) further stipulates that they all talked very loudly, which demeaned the reputation of Court. The order-sheet(s) also stipulates to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. A.K. Jain and Mr. Manish Sharma for clicking photographs of dias selectively, that too without permission when the undersigned went to answer natural call for a minute. 7. In response, respondent- contemnor No. 1 Mr. A.K. Jain in his reply, disclosed that indeed he never appeared and presented himself before the Presiding Officer on 18.11.2022. He pointed out that Reference of complaint against him is malafide because a day before i.e. on 17.11.2022, a written complaint/ representation about the conduct of Presiding Officer, to continue the Court proceedings of the Court even in his absence, was made before the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. He submits that in support of this complaint/ representation made against the Presiding Officer, his colleague Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma enclosed his affidavit showing that Presiding Officer passed order(s) in these cases malafidely and at one day, had warned him that he would face adverse consequences for clicking photographs [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] of dias when he (Presiding Officer) was not sitting in the Court, but Court proceedings of recording evidence were going on. Respondent No.1 has submitted that in such backdrop of true facts, belated reference of contempt appears to be arbitrary and malafide, hence, same be dropped against him. Copy of representation dated 17.11.2022 submitted before Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, has been placed on record. 8. In the reply, submitted by and on behalf of respondent No.2- contemnor so also in his affidavit, he submits that he presented only an application before the Presiding Officer to adjourn the cases on 18.11.2022, stating inter alia therein that a transfer application, to transfer the cases before any of the Labour Court has been filed before the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court on 17.11.2022. He categorically denied the use of any abusive language, demeaning the decorum and dignity of the Majesty of Court. He accepted the fact of submission of his affidavit in support of complaint/ representation made by his Senior Mr. A.K. Jain, against the Presiding Officer. Copy of application dated 18.11.2022 has been placed on record and contents of affidavit of respondent No.2 have been narrated in the reply. 9. It is noteworthy that respondent No.2- contemnor has also tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology, stating inter alia, that he has utmost respect and regard to the Court and Presiding Officer and if any of his conduct has been perceived as scandalizing the Court, he tenders his unqualified apology for same. 10. Having gone through the record, we find that on different dates, adverse order(s) were passed by the Presiding Officer of [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] Labour Court against the Management, MGD School. In one case, cross-examination of witnesses-workmen by Management was closed on 10.11.2022 and on next date i.e. 7.12.2022, some time was sought to adduce evidence by Management, which was observed as dilatory tactic by the Management to delay the proceedings. In an another case, LCR No. 187/2017 on 29.11.2022, last opportunity to lead evidence by the Management, subject to deposition of cost of Rs. 5000/-, was given and then on 08.12.2022, evidence of Management was closed. In LCR No. 195/2017 on 07.09.2022, observations against the Management were recorded to drag the proceedings and peremptory order, to close its evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- was passed and then on next date 17.10.2022, evidence of Management was closed. The order-sheet(s) does not reflect raising of any objection from the side of workmen. The case was adjourned for final arguments on 16.11.2022, which was then again adjourned for two consecutive dates i.e. 17.11.2022 and 18.11.2022. In LCR case No. 196/2017 of 22.08.2022, evidence of Management was closed and for arguments, a date i.e. 22.09.2022 was fixed. Application filed by the Management, to recall the order and to grant an opportunity to lead evidence, was dismissed on the same date and case was deferred for final arguments on 16.11.2022, then again for two consecutive dates i.e. on 17.11.2022 and 18.11.2022. Perusal of order-sheet(s), referred hereinabove, goes to show that the Presiding Officer, although assigned reason imputing the Management for causing delay, but nowhere recorded any resistance, if at all raised from the side of workmen. What is apparent from above referred order- [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] sheets that on each and every date, proceedings were commenced by the Labour Court and the prayer of adjournment made by and on behalf of respondent-Management was not acceded to, rather effective order(s) to proceed in these cases were passed by the Presiding Officer. 11. Having perused the order-sheet(s) in these cases, other than the order-sheet drawn on 18.11.2022 in two cases, there is nothing against both the Advocates to assume that their conduct warrants taking cognizance of an offence of committing Criminal Contempt of Court. The observations made by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court that adjournment was prayed on false pretext and just to drag the proceedings, though, may be against moral ethics and misconduct under the Advocates Act, but may not be construed to attract the commission of an act of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such an act of Advocates, even if noticed by the Court, may not be held suffice to punish them for Contempt of Court. The word “Scandalizing” should be construed to have a meaning that the act must be of the nature of making a scurrilous attack on the Majesty of Court, which tantamounts to undermining the authority of the Courts and public confidence in administration of justice. 12. As far as incident, which allegedly happened in the Court Room of Labour Court on 18.11.2022 is concerned, as noted by the Presiding Officer, in his handwritten order-sheet(s) drawn in two cases, same apparently appears to be of serious nature. Any Advocate or a group of Advocates certainly cannot act and behave with the Presiding Officer in the open Court, in a manner, which interferes with the administration of justice and disrepute or insult [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] the Court. Even if, a crowd of Advocates make a ruckus in the Court Room, do browbeating shout slogans, hackle the Judge or try to hijack the Court proceedings, they are surely liable to face the criminal contempt; such type of acts / conduct of Advocate or group of Advocates, fall in category of scandalizing the Court and lowering down the authority of Court as much as cover within the purview of “tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or to obstruct the administration of justice”. 13. But in the order-sheet(s) dated 18.11.2022, neither any details of the crowd of 20-25 Advocates, who were part of such crowd, is available nor any specific words or slogans, spoken by them to disrepute or demean the Court of law or the act of browbeating is mentioned therein. Even the order-sheet itself does not depict appearance and presence of Advocate Mr. A.K. Jain before the Presiding Officer on that date i.e. 18.11.2022, so he was certainly not part of the crowd of 20-25 Advocates. For Mr. Manish Sharma, no specific utterance of words allegedly spoken by him, have been noted and a general allegation against the crowd of Advocates to talk loudly and hijacking the Court has been mentioned. Mr. Manish Sharma, although, in his reply, does not deny his presence in the Court on 18.11.2022, but clearly denies utterance of a single word, demeaning the dignity of Court or disrespecting the Presiding Officer. Notice for initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt has not been issued against anyone else, except the two Advocates mentioned hereinabove, so no other Advocate can be held guilty for demeaning and scandalizing the Court, proceedings of criminal contempt should not be initiated lightly nor any one can be held guilty for criminal [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] contempt by drawing presumption only. Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma was representing Advocate Mr. A.K. Jain, he may not be held guilty on the basis of presumption only. Nevertheless, Mr. Manish Sharma has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology and states that, if for one or other reason, has been held responsible for such an incident or any of his act has been perceived as contumacious, he tenders his written, unqualified and unconditional apology. 14. Punishing any counsel for committing criminal contempt of Court is obviously a serious matter and no one can be held guilty nor can be punished for committing Contempt of Court on the basis of drawing assumption and presumption & unless substantive material to believe his/her specific role, with the specifications to commit a contempt by scandalizing the Court is not established that too beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be punished. In support of such proposition of law, reference of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas Vs. Subrata Das [(2004) 4 SCC 573], would be suffice wherein while reiterating the enunciation of law, expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 494], following observations were made:- “9. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law.” [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] 15. There cannot be a quarrel about the established proposition that the Lawyers should not over step the limits of decency and ethics in the matter of their behavior and conduct, towards the Judges. The Member of Bar, obviously owes a duty to look after interest of his clients but not to the extent of scandalizing the Court or Judges, whose dignity and Majesty he has to protect and respect at any cost and by all means. 16. In the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of M.Y. Shareef Vs. The Hon’ble Judges of Nagpur High Court [AIR 1955 SC 19], it was clearly observed that the obligation of a Member of Bar to maintain the dignity of Court and Majesty of law is higher than his duty towards his client. 17. The Court/ Presiding Officer also has a reciprocal duty to not be discourteous or revengeful towards a Lawyer and should also try to maintain his respect in the eyes of his clients and the general public, with whom he has to deal with in his professional capacity. Hypersensitiveness on the one side or rudeness on the other must be avoided at all cost. It needs to be reminded that both the Bench and Bar are the two arms of the same machinery and both are accepted to perform their pious duties and work, which obviously they do not perform personally for themselves, rather performs in the interest of litigants and in the larger interest of justice to protect the rights of litigants, hence, for better and proper administration of justice, both should work harmoniously instead of locking horns with each other. 18. Having noticed the factual matrix of the present case and in view of the discussion of the legal principles narrated hereinabove, we are not inclined to continue the proceedings of criminal [2026:RJ-JP:1535-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLCP-2/2023] contempt or to frame charges of criminal contempt against the Advocate Mr. A.K. Jain. As far as contempt proceedings against Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma are concerned, he has understood the true nature of allegations levelled against him in the reference note supported with order-sheet(s) and he has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology, hence, we deem it just and proper to accept his apology and drop the proceedings of present criminal contempt against him as well. 19. The final outcome of discussion and enunciation made hereinabove is that the proceedings of present Contempt Petition are hereby closed. 20. Notices of Contempt stand discharged. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /88