# NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 5 S.C.R. 313
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-03-12
- **Bench:** R. F. Nariman, Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/national-lawyers-campaign-for-judicial-transparency-and-reforms-ors-v-union-of-33819
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - An advocate 'MN', appearing
on behalf of the petitioners attempted to browbeat and insult Judges
of the Supreme Court - Held: It was not the first time the advocate
in question attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Supreme
Court - Considering, the course of behaviour of the advocate before
Tribunals, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, it was
clear that the said advocate embarked on a calculated course of
conduct to defeat the administration of justice in this country - In
the interest of justice, notice issued to the advocate as to the
punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the
face of the Court - Advocates Act, 1961.
Constitution of India - Art.32 - Second review - Writ petition,
in essence, sought a second review of the judgment in Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and
Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 766 - Held: Second review petition is barred by
Or.XLVII, r.5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Even otherwise, it
is settled law that an Art.32 petition does not lie against the judgment
of the Supreme Court - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Or.XLVII, r.5.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. When contempt is committed in the face of the
Court, judges' hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty
of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand
that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly. An
early judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief
Justice S. Teja Singh, proceeded cautiously, but made it clear that
where a judge is personally attacked, it would be proper for the
judge to deal with the matter himself, in cases of contempt in the
face of the Court. [Para 9] [334-E-F]
 313
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 313
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
2. In Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, two learned
Judges differed on whether contempt in the face of the Court can
be dealt with summarily, without any need of issuing notice to the
contemnors, and whether punishment can be inflicted upon them
there and then. Pasayat, J. held that this is, indeed, the duty of
the Court. Ganguly, J. differed. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court, in Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, settled the law,
making it clear that Pasayat, J.'s view was the correct view in
law. [Para 10] [335-D-E]
3. Conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is
severe. Though this Court could have punished the advocate by
this order itself, in the interest of justice, notice issued to advocate
in question as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for
committing contempt in the face of the Court. [Para 13]
[339-B-C]
4. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ
Petition, in essence, seeks a second review of the judgment
reported in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through
Secretary General and Ors. Even otherwise, it is settled law that
an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this
Court. Further, Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a
provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the
designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty
or as a matter of right. [Para 15] [339-B-C]
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh
[1954] SCR 454; Leila David (6) v. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337 : [2009] 15 SCR 317;
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 :
[2009] 11 SCR 1026 - relied on.
Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 4 SCC
578 : [2009] 4 SCR 1171; Indira Jaising v. Supreme
Court of India through Secretary General and Ors.
(2017) 9 SCC 766 : [2017] 10 SCR 478; Ram Niranjan
Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 11 :
[2014] 4 SCR 583 - referred to.
High Court on its own Motion v. Nedumpara Mathews,
Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 9 of 2012
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
(order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Bombay High
Court); Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery
Officer, Notice of Motion (L) No

## Text

_Characters 0–39,851 of 59,906. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39851 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
 NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR
 JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS.
 v.
 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No.191 of 2019)
MARCH 12, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - An advocate 'MN', appearing
on behalf of the petitioners attempted to browbeat and insult Judges
of the Supreme Court - Held: It was not the first time the advocate
in question attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Supreme
Court - Considering, the course of behaviour of the advocate before
Tribunals, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, it was
clear that the said advocate embarked on a calculated course of
conduct to defeat the administration of justice in this country - In
the interest of justice, notice issued to the advocate as to the
punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the
face of the Court - Advocates Act, 1961.
Constitution of India - Art.32 - Second review - Writ petition,
in essence, sought a second review of the judgment in Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and
Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 766 - Held: Second review petition is barred by
Or.XLVII, r.5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Even otherwise, it
is settled law that an Art.32 petition does not lie against the judgment
of the Supreme Court - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Or.XLVII, r.5.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. When contempt is committed in the face of the
Court, judges' hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty
of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand
that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly. An
early judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief
Justice S. Teja Singh, proceeded cautiously, but made it clear that
where a judge is personally attacked, it would be proper for the
judge to deal with the matter himself, in cases of contempt in the
face of the Court. [Para 9] [334-E-F]
 313
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 313
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
2. In Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, two learned
Judges differed on whether contempt in the face of the Court can
be dealt with summarily, without any need of issuing notice to the
contemnors, and whether punishment can be inflicted upon them
there and then. Pasayat, J. held that this is, indeed, the duty of
the Court. Ganguly, J. differed. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court, in Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, settled the law,
making it clear that Pasayat, J.'s view was the correct view in
law. [Para 10] [335-D-E]
3. Conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is
severe. Though this Court could have punished the advocate by
this order itself, in the interest of justice, notice issued to advocate
in question as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for
committing contempt in the face of the Court. [Para 13]
[339-B-C]
4. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ
Petition, in essence, seeks a second review of the judgment
reported in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through
Secretary General and Ors. Even otherwise, it is settled law that
an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this
Court. Further, Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a
provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the
designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty
or as a matter of right. [Para 15] [339-B-C]
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh
[1954] SCR 454; Leila David (6) v. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337 : [2009] 15 SCR 317;
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 :
[2009] 11 SCR 1026 - relied on.
Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 4 SCC
578 : [2009] 4 SCR 1171; Indira Jaising v. Supreme
Court of India through Secretary General and Ors.
(2017) 9 SCC 766 : [2017] 10 SCR 478; Ram Niranjan
Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 11 :
[2014] 4 SCR 583 - referred to.
High Court on its own Motion v. Nedumpara Mathews,
Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 9 of 2012
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
(order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Bombay High
Court); Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery
Officer, Notice of Motion (L) No. 175 of 2013 in Writ
Petition (L) No. 2772 of 2012 (Order dated
20.06.2013 passed by the Bombay High Court);
International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.
v. Phoenix Alchemy Pvt. Ltd., Company Petition No.
423 of 2010 (order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the
Bombay High Court); Brian Castellino v. Official
Liquidator of M/s. RTec Systems Pvt. Ltd., Official
Liquidators Report No. 347 of 2014 in Company
Petition No. 452 of 2010 (order dated 23.12.2014
passed by the Bombay High Court); Lalita Mohan
Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer,
Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors., Writ Petition
No. 2334 of 2013 (order dated 15.03.2017 passed by
the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court);
Anand Agarwal and Anr. v. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar
and Ors. Notice of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 in
Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017(Order dated
05.03.2018 passed by the Bombay High Court)
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 10 SCR 478
 referred to
Paras 3, 15
[1954] SCR 454
 relied on
Para 9
[2009] 4 SCR 1171
 referred to
Para 10
[2009] 15 SCR 317
 relied on
Para 10
[2014] 4 SCR 583
 referred to
Para 11
[2009] 11 SCR 1026
 referred to
Para 12
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 191 of 2019.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
Mathews J. Nedumpara, A. C. Philip, Rabin Majumder, Advs.
for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. In the course of arguments in the present Writ Petition, Shri
Mathews Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, alleged that Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate
persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges' relatives
as Senior Advocates. On being asked whether such a designation should
be granted as a matter of bounty, Shri Nedumpara took the name of Shri
Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by the Court, he took Shri Fali S.
Nariman's name again. Thereafter, on being questioned by the Court as
to what the relevance of taking the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman was,
he promptly denied having done so. It was only when others present in
Court confirmed having heard him take the learned Senior Advocate's
name, that he attempted to justify the same, but failed to offer any adequate explanation.
2. We are of the view that the only reason for taking the learned
Senior Advocate's name, without there being any relevance to his name
in the present case, is to browbeat the Court and embarrass one of us.
Shri Nedumpara then proceeded to make various statements unrelated
to the matter at hand. He stated that, "Your Lordships have enormous
powers of contempt, and Tihar Jail is not so far." He further submitted
that lawyers are like Judges and are immune from contempt, as they are
protected by law. He also stated that there can be no defamation against
a lawyer, as also there can be no contempt proceedings against a lawyer,
as the same would impinge on the independence of lawyers, which they
ought to enjoy to the fullest. All these statements directly affect the
administration of justice, and is contempt in the face of the Court.
3. This is not the first time that this particular advocate has
attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of this Court. In point of fact,
the style of this particular advocate is to go on arguing, quoting Latin
maxims, and when he finds that the Court is not with him, starts becoming
abusive. We also find that this advocate is briefed to appear in hopeless
cases and attempts, by browbeating the Court, to get discretionary orders,
which no Court is otherwise prepared to give. We have found that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
317
vast majority of appearances by this advocate before us have been in
cases in which debtors have persistently defaulted, as a result of which
their mortgaged properties have to be handed over to secured creditors
to be sold in auction. It is at this stage that Shri Nedumpara is briefed to
somehow put off the auction sale. Even the present Writ Petition is a
case in which a review petition against the judgment of this Court in
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 has already
been dismissed. With full knowledge that a second review petition is
barred by Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Shri
Nedumpara seeks a second review in the form of a writ petition filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Quite apart from this, the
said advocate has already indulged in conduct unbecoming of an
advocate, which has been noticed by an order dated 19.11.2018 in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.26424 of 2018, which is set out hereinbelow:
 "O R D E R
1. I.A. Nos. 163019 of 2018,163020 of 2018 and 164145 of 2018
in S.L.P. (C) No. 26424 of 2018 are dismissed. Shri Mathews
Nedumpara, Advocate for the Petitioner, appeared before us on
22nd October, 2018. He stated that Rs.80 lakhs would be paid
within a period of four weeks from 22nd October, 2018. The Court
granted him a period of one week from 22nd October, 2018 to
make the necessary payment. The order clearly stated:
"If the aforesaid payment is not made within one week, the
special leave petition shall be dismissed without further
reference to this Court."
2. No such payment was made within the period of one week and
hence, the special leave petition stood dismissed without further
reference to this Court. However, on 14th November, 2018, Shri
Nedumpara, appearing with an AOR, mentioned the same matter
before us without informing us that the S.L.P. had already stood
dismissed without reference to this Court. By suppressing the
order dated 22nd October, 2018, Shri Nedumpara obtained an order
from this very Bench on 14th November, 2018 stating:
"List on Monday, the 19th November, 2018 along with IA No.
163019/2018 - Application for Modification of Order and IA
No. 163020/2018 - Application for Direction."
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
3. When the matter was listed before us today, we repeatedly
asked Shri Nedumpara, why he did not disclose to us the order
dated 22nd October, 2018 when the matter was mentioned before
us on 14th November, 2018. To this, there was no answer. We
then warned Shri Nedumpara that as a counsel appearing before
the Court, his primary duty is to disclose all material facts to the
Court before obtaining any order from the Court. We have warned
him that such unbecoming conduct of an advocate who appears
before this Court, will be sternly dealt with should any future
incident of a like nature arise before this Court. We were inclined
to impose heavy costs but have not done so only because the
appellant, for whom Shri Nedumpara appears, already appears to
be in dire straits financially."
4. We also find that Shri Nedumpara has misconducted himself
repeatedly before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bombay and before the
Bombay High Court. This is reflected in certain orders passed by the
Bombay High Court. Thus, in High Court on its own Motion v.
Nedumpara Mathews, Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 9 of
2012, an order dated 18.09.2012 recorded:
"1. ...... Mr. Mathews has disrupted the proceedings of the Court
and refused to conclude, insisting that the Court is a servant of
justice and is bound to hear him. No member of the Bar or Litigant
can insist that the mentioning of matters or their listing should be
at his or her convenience. Mr. Mathews is habituated to being
disruptive in Court. Several Benches of this Court have directed
the Registry not to list his matters before those Benches. Today,
despite efforts to make him see reason, Mr. Mathews has persisted
in disrupting the proceedings, preventing matters from being called
out. Before we passed this order, which we do with extreme
circumspection, we have put Mr. Mathews on notice that should
he continue to disrupt the proceedings of the Court, the Court
would have no option but to issue a notice to show cause under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Unfortunately,
there has been no change in his behaviour.
2. ...... If any member of the Bar or the litigating public is allowed
to compel the Court to take up a matter at his own convenience,
the orderly functioning of the Court will be seriously affected.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
319
Mr. Mathews has persisted in disrupting the proceedings and has
not heeded to being counselled.
3. In the circumstances, the registry is directed to issue a notice
to show cause to Mr. Nedumpara Mathews, Advocate calling
upon him to state as to why proceedings should not be adopted
against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The hearing
of the notice shall be placed before the appropriate Bench in
accordance with the assignment of work."
In Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer, Notice
of Motion (L) no. 175 of 2013 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2772 of 2012, by
order dated 20.06.2013, a suo motu notice for criminal contempt was
issued by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, stating as follows:
"5. When the present Notice of Motion was called out on 8 May
2013, the learned Counsel appearing for the Authorized Officer
of Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., (the Respondent No. 2 herein)
tendered an Affidavit dated 25 March 2013 of Mr. A. S. Tambe,
Assistant General Manager of Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
which indicates that a person posing himself as a Sitting Judge of
this Court spoke to Mr. A. S. Tambe from a mobile phone which
is traced to be that of Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara."
xxx xxx xxx
"8. It is submitted that the affidavit states that Mr. Tambe had a
conversation with a person having Mobile Number viz: 9820535428
and the person at the other end told him that, "I am (name of a
sitting Judge of this Court) here, Matthews is before me. Ask
your Advocate to call me." The affidavit of Tambe, further states
that the said mobile belongs to the firm of Advocates - M/s.
Nedumpara and Nedumpara, who appear for the Petitioner.
9. In view of the above affidavit, on 13 June 2013 after hearing
the parties, this Court directed the service providers - Vodafone
Ltd. and Idea Cellular Ltd. to place on record the call details of
three cell numbers - 9820535428, 9819846333 and 8108066202
for 4 March 2013 and 5 March 2013. This information was
necessary to determine whether there is any element of truth in
the allegations made in the affidavit dated 25 March 2013 of Mr.
Tambe.
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
10. Today, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the said service
providers, placing on record the call details. Copies of the affidavits
filed by the service providers are also served upon Advocate Mr.
Nedumpara in Court. We also directed the service of a copy of
the affidavit of Mr. A. S. Tambe dated 25 March 2013 which was
kept in a sealed cover, upon Advocate Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara
and the same was done in our presence. On perusal of the call
records, we find that there has been contact between the above
three mobile cell numbers.
11. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of Vodafone (India) Ltd.
the number 9820535428 is subscribed in the name of Mr. Mathews
J. Nedumpara and mobile number 9819846333 is of Mr. Sanjeev
Mohan Tejwani, who is son of the Petitioner. While as per the
affidavit filed on behalf of Idea Cellular Ltd., the mobile number
8108066202 is subscribed in the name of Mr. Sanjay V. Kale
address at Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. Chembur, Mumbai 400
071. Learned Counsel for Respondent-Bank states that mobile
no. 8108066202 is presently being used by Mr. A. S. Tambe,
Assistant General Manager of the Respondent-Bank. Advocate
Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara admits that the mobile no. 9820535428
is his own mobile number.
12. In view of the contents of the affidavits of service providers,
it appears that the statements made in the affidavit of Mr. A. S.
Tambe if correct, would amount to criminal contempt on the part
of the person who spoke from cell no. 9820535428 to Mr. A. S.
Tambe. As per the record of Vodafone, the said cell number is of
Advocate Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara and Mr. Mathews J.
Nedumpara admits that it is his mobile number. In view of the
above, it appears that this is a fit case for initiating Suo Motu
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Advocate
Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara be joined as respondent No. 1 and
State of Maharashtra as respondent No. 2 in the Suo Motu
Contempt Proceedings.
13. The Registry to issue notice to Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara
to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against
him for Criminal Contempt as defined in the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Since, this Court is only issuing a notice and not issuing
a rule at this stage, no further observations are called for."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
In International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. v.
Phoenix Alchemy Pvt. Ltd., Company Petition No. 423 of 2010, by an
order dated 01.03.2014, the Bombay High Court devoted several
paragraphs under the caption "The Conduct of Mr. Mathews
Nedumpara, Advocate for the ex-Directors". Excerpts under this
sub-head read as follows:
"58. When I told Mr. Nedumpara that he would have his turn to
argue after the Advocate for the Official Liquidator, he was
adamant and insisted on raising this issue of maintainability. He
was addressing the Court in an aggressive, discourteous and
offensive manner. This went on for quite a few minutes, during
which time I was repeatedly requesting him to take his seat and
await his turn. During this time, he was not even willing to listen
to the Court and kept addressing the Court and making remarks
that were most inappropriate and to the effect that he is not getting
an opportunity of being heard and that he was used to 'insults'
from the Court.
59. It was clear to me that this was nothing but a stalling tactic to
ensure that the matter on the Official Liquidators Report does not
proceed. All through these initial few minutes his demeanour was
loud, brash and disrespectful. The Court was crowded and it was
almost as if Mr. Nedumpara was playing to the galleries, as much
of what he was saying had little to do with the matter or for that
matter his point of maintainability."
xxx xxx xxx
"62. Finally, when Mr. Nedumpara was asked to address the Court
in response to the Official Liquidators Report, he insisted on
addressing the Court only on the issue of maintainability of a
Petition at the instance of Secured Creditors who had adopted (or
as he put it "elected") other remedies. Even during this part of the
hearing, Mr. Nedumpara was extremely disrespectful and
offensive in the manner in which he addressed the Court. Just
because the Court wanted him to address it on the Official
Liquidators Report, he repeatedly said how he is not being heard.
His tone and tenor was accusatory, often times breaking into Latin
Maxims in the context of his most improper suggestion that he is
not being heard or that he was being treated unfairly.
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
63. This went on again for quite a few minutes during which time
he resolutely refused to address even a single query from the
Court or address the Court on the merits of the matter/Official
Liquidator's Report that was before the Court.
64. Mr. Nedumpara's demeanour was obstructive and to my mind
intended to interfere with the administration of justice and lower
the dignity and authority of the Court. In a situation such as this, in
my opinion, the Court would have been entitled to take note of the
conduct of Mr. Nedumpara as contempt in the face of the Court
and deal with it summarily and immediately or to direct the issuance
of a Show Cause Notice to treat it as 'criminal contempt' under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with the Rules framed
thereunder."
xxx xxx xxx
"69. These judgments establish that conduct of Advocates, such
as has been described by me in the foregoing paragraphs of the
Order, can constitute sufficient reason to issue Show Cause Notice
for criminal contempt or to be dealt with immediately and
summarily as contempt committed in the face of the Court.
70. Having said that, in this case I have done neither. Let this
Order be a strict and final warning to Mr. Mathew Nedumpara
that the Court will not tolerate this conduct and if such conduct is
repeated in the future, the Court may be constrained to act."
5. As a sequel to this order, Shri Nedumpara filed an application in
which he requested that the aforesaid Single Judge of the Bombay High
Court should recuse himself from hearing matters in which Advocate
Nedumpara appears for one of the parties. This application was dealt
with by an order dated 23.12.2014 in Brian Castellino v. Official
Liquidator of M/s. RTec Systems Pvt. Ltd., Official Liquidators Report
No. 347 of 2014 in Company Petition No. 452 of 2010. In the course of
submissions made before the learned Single Judge, a compilation was
submitted by one of the learned counsel. This is reflected in paragraph
13 of the said order as follows:
"13. Mr. Kapadia has submitted a compilation, inter alia, containing
(i) orders passed by the Single Judges and Division Benches of
this Court setting out the conduct of Advocate Nedumpara in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
matters that he appears, (ii) resolutions passed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, resolving not to take up any matters
where Advocate Nedumpara and/or his Juniors appear and (iii)
criminal complaints filed against Advocate Nedumpara by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai for serious offences. Mr. Kapadia
has from the said compilation of documents/orders pointed out as
follows:
(i) That three of the Division Benches and three Single Judges of
this Court have recused themselves in matters where Advocate
Nedumpara has appeared.
(ii) The Division Bench comprising of A.H. Joshi and M.L.
Tahaliyani, JJ. has whilst recusing itself vide order dated 22nd May,
2013 in Writ Petition (L) No. 1272 of 2013 recorded the conduct
of Advocate Nedumpara and his client as follows:
"1. An affidavit in answer to query put by the Court is
filed.
2. In the affidavit the Petitioner has used language as his
Advocate's opinion, expressing impropriety on the part of
court in putting questions to the petitioner. The language
exhibits total lack of etiquettes of drafting and lack of
respect to the court akin to insinuation.
3. Since the litigant and counsel do not respect the court
and express anguish with discourteous language, it is
considered necessary that this bench should not hear this
case. Hence we recuse.
4. Liberty to move before the appropriate court."
(iii) That by an order dated 18th September, 2012, a Single Judge
of this Court has issued suo motu criminal contempt notices against
Advocate Nedumpara.
(iv) That by an order dated 20th June, 2013, a Division Bench of
this Court have issued suo motu criminal contempt notices against
Advocate Nedumpara.
(v) That by an order dated 9th April, 2014, passed by a Division
Bench of this Court it has been observed that Advocate Nedumpara
has made reckless, irresponsible and contemptuous allegations
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
against the Bench and the opponents. After recording an apology
of Advocate Nedumpara which is noted as 'belated', the Division
Bench has expressed in paragraph 13 that a message goes to all
advocates including M/s. Nedumpara & Nedumpara so that in
future, this Court has no occasion to observe anything or initiate
any proceedings. Mr. Kapadia submitted that the aforesaid
observations are in the context of an attempt on the part of the
juniors of Advocate Nedumpara to approach one of the members
of the Bench at his residence and the apologies were for
addressing a letter thereafter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice making
allegations against the learned Judge who refused to give a hearing
to the juniors at his residence.
(vi) That by an order dated 1st October, 2014, a Division Bench of
this Court rejected the request for recusal made by Advocate
Nedumpara.
(vii) That Advocate Nedumpara addressed letters to the President
of India, Vice President of India, Prime Minister of India, Home
Minister of India. Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Minister for
law and justice, Leader of Opposition, etc. making wild, baseless,
contemptuous allegations against the Constitutional functionaries
of this Court.
(viii) That a Resolution dated 19th May, 2014 was passed by all
three learned Presiding Officers of the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Mumbai (DRT) resolving that no matters of Advocate Nedumpara
or his juniors be listed before them. The Resolution is reproduced
hereunder:
"A very unfortunate and shocking situation has been
created today by Advocate Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara
along with his juniors Mr. Navneet Krishnan, Mr. Nishant,
Ms. Rohini and alleged clients in the open Court Hall of
DRT I, II, III and that to the extent that the smooth
functioning of the Tribunal has come to halt and justice
delivery system has got obstructed. They have willingly and
intentionally created this scenario in the open court with
ulterior motive. The dignity and trust of the Tribunal has
been lowered down and all the Officers and staff of the
Tribunal has been offended. Presiding Officers of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
Tribunals have to retire to their chambers and complaint
has also been lodged with the police by the Presiding Officer
of DRT I, Mumbai in this regard. We are apprehending
that this kind of bad and turbulent situation may again
take place and working of the Tribunals may be disturbed.
Considering the dimension and seriousness of the situation
we all felt that this situation may be adverted by taking
Resolution that we should not take up the matters in which
the aforesaid Advocates are engaged. The litigants may
engage other lawyers in the cases in which the above
Advocates are engaged. Meanwhile the Registry is directed
to shortlist the cases in which the above said lawyers are
engaged and not to place their cases before the Tribunal.
This Resolution be notified for information.
Copy of this Resolution is also transmitted to Hon'ble
Chairperson, DRAT Mumbai for necessary information and
needful.
Dated this 19th May, 2014".
(ix) That a complaint has been filed by the DRT, Mumbai, alleging
criminal offences committed by Advocate Nedumpara."
A reading of this paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Shri
Nedumpara is in the habit of terrorising Tribunal members and using
intemperate language to achieve his ends before several Judges of the
Bombay High Court. The order dated 23.12.2014 then went on to state:
"33. In present times, a huge number of disputes are brought
before the Courts for adjudication. The monetary stakes involved
in the matters are also very substantial. In other cases, personal
status of parties is involved, and these matters are invariably
emotionally charged. The demands of the litigants over their
Advocates have seemingly increased. Many dishonest/ desperate
litigants along with some lawyers, who are not as honest as they
are expected to be, leave no stone unturned to avoid a Judge that
they perceive to be inconvenient or unfavourable or to obfuscate
issues or to delay the proceedings and frustrate the course of
justice. To achieve this end, they attempt to criticize judges, cast
uncalled for aspersions on Judges with the intention that the Judge
so attacked will give up the matter. A judge who is showered with
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
criticisms and insinuations, though baseless, may be inclined to
recuse himself so as to stay out of harm's way of the baseless
suspicion or allegation or to avoid being unpopular or to just avoid
taking over the burden of a matter which is intentionally made
heavier by litigants and/or their Advocates. However, as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy's case (supra), a
Judge who prefers the recusal route despite knowing that the
criticisms/insinuations made against him are baseless, would not
be true to his oath of dispensing justice without fear or favour. In
my view, a Judge would be failing in his duty if he endeavours to
become popular amongst the members of the bar or members of
the public by avoiding difficult situations or following the route of
appeasement. A Judge accepts judgeship to dispense justice without
fear or favour and not to attain popularity of any kind. Again, he
will not be true to his oath if he feels that it is convenient to recuse
himself from a matter rather than facing a lawyer or a litigant
who gives him sleepless nights by criticizing him or casting
aspersions on him which are totally incorrect and untrue. In this
regard, the observations made in the case of Triodos Bank NV
vs. Dobbs, [(2005) EWCA 468] are apposite:
"It is always tempting for a judge against whom criticisms
are made to say that he would prefer not to hear further
proceedings in which the critic is involved. It is tempting
to take that course because the judge will know that the
critic is likely to go away with a sense of grievance if the
decision goes against him. Rightly or wrongly a litigant
who does not have confidence in the Judge who hears his
case will feel that if he loses, he has in some way been
discriminated against. But it is important for a judge to
resist the temptation to recuse himself simply because it
would be more comfortable to do so. The reason is that -
If judges were to recuse themselves whenever a litigant -
whether it be a represented litigant or a litigant in person
- criticized them (which sometimes happens not
infrequently) we would soon reach the position in which
litigants were able to select judges to hear their cases,
simply by criticizing all the judges that they did not want
to hear their case. It would be easy for a litigant to produce
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
a situation in which a judge felt obliged to recuse himself
simply because he had been criticized - whether that
criticism was justified or not."
34. I am therefore of the view that the grounds on which the
Application of recusal is made by Advocate Nedumpara and his
client are wholly baseless and unfounded. I have no doubt that
the present Application seeking recusal of this Court, to borrow
the language of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to avoid this Court,
obfuscate issues, delay the proceedings and frustrate the course
of justice. The Application is therefore rejected. I have decided
not to deal with the compilation of documents relied upon by Mr.
Kapadia in support of his contention. Instead I would rather join
Mr. Chinoy, the Learned Amicus Curiae, in advising Advocate
Nedumpara to introspect and find fault with oneself before finding
faults with others. I may end by expressing a sincere hope that
the assurance given by Advocate Nedumpara to this Court that
he takes the advice of Mr. Aspi Chinoy to heart, that he will
introspect and correct himself wherever he has gone wrong, is
fulfilled in the right spirit."
6. In Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer and
Sales Officer, Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors., Writ Petition
No. 2334 of 2013, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by an
order dated 15.03.2017, recorded as follows:
"3. Mr. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that
he does not want to answer any questions of the Court as for the
petitioner as "dominus litis" he should be heard. We had not
prevented Mr. Nedumpara from arguing but wanted him to
answer the basic issue as urged on behalf of respondent Nos. 1
and 2. At this stage, the manner in which Mr. Nedumpara
conducted himself and behaved before the Court to say the least
was most abusive, contemptuous, lowering the dignity of the
Court, as also unbecoming of an advocate and officer of the Court.
This conduct of Mr. Nedumpara, in our opinion, amounts to
contempt in the face of the Court. Not only that but his demeanour
as an officer of the Court was also highly objectionable. Mr.
Nedumpara not only created a scene in the Court but also made
abuses at the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
and 2. In fact, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
and 2 pointed out that on every occasion Mr. Nedumpara was
behaving and conducting himself in this manner.
4. What happened thereafter is further shocking. When the hearing
was in progress and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1
and 2 was pointing out to us the details of the earlier decisions and
the similar proceedings, Mr. Nedumpara walked out of the arguing
seat and went behind and sat in the last row showing utter disregard
and indifference to the sanctity of the court proceedings.
Thereafter, when learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
was addressing this Court, Mr. Nedumpara came forward and
interrupted the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
was again abusive towards the Court, and vehemently insisted
that he be heard and he need not answer any query of the Court.
When we pointed out that our queries on the basic issues were
required to be answered so that further hearing can be proceeded,
Mr. Nedumpara walked out of the Court and then did not return.
5. We find that what happened in the Court today is not only most
unfortunate but highly objectionable affecting the solemnity and
sanctity of the judicial proceedings. The conduct of Mr.
Nedumpara has seriously affected not only the dignity of the Court
but also the interest of administration of justice. We may observe
that the solemn function of the Court is to dispense justice
according to law and, therefore, it is well settled that the
proceedings inside the Court are always expected to be held in a
dignified and an orderly manner. The counsel of the Court is
expected to be a responsible officer of the Court and if such
contemptuous behavior on the part of Mr. Nedumpara is not
seriously dealt with, the same would erode the dignity of the Court
and corrode the majesty of the Court impairing confidence of the
public in the efficacy of the institution of the Court. This conduct
of Mr. Nedumpara, in our opinion, amounts to a gross contempt
of the Court and, therefore, it is necessary that an action as per
the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is initiated.
6. We, accordingly, issue notice to Mr. Mathew Nedumpara,
Advocate under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and section
14 of the Contempt of Court Act, returnable after two weeks.
Mr. Nedumpara is directed to show cause as to why action should
not be taken against him under Article 215 of the Constitution of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
India and under the Contempt of Court Act on his conduct and
behavior as noted by us above in detail."
7. Shri Nedumpara features in yet another order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 05.03.2018 in Anand
Agarwal and Anr. v. Vilas Chandrakant Gaonkar and Ors., Notice
of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 in Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017. The
order states as follows:
"1. At this point of time, the Judiciary is mired in challenges of a
very grave nature, perhaps like never before. It is being observed
that there is, amongst some litigants and their Advocates, virtually
no fear or hesitation in making false statements and
misrepresentations before the Court, which should under any and
all circumstances be dealt with the iron hand of the judiciary with
zero tolerance for such blatantly unethical and mala-fide behaviour.
2. The dignity and respect of the Court along with its prescribed
procedures is being unabashedly violated by certain litigants who
are using foul and unfair means to demean and denounce the
august Judiciary by making frivolous and baseless allegations
against the Judges, and/or their opponents and their Advocates,
with a view to rescind and back-track on solemn undertakings
and statements earlier made in Court. This malicious modus
operandi of certain dishonest litigants is absolutely unacceptable,
as it seeks to subvert the very foundations of justice that the
Judiciary is committed to uphold. With no merit in their case, and
in a bid to avert an unfavourable order being passed against them,
such dishonest litigants collude with their Advocates to use
underhanded means to ensure favourable orders and their
consequent success in litigation instituted or defended by them.
3. Certain Advocates sadly seem to have forgotten the code of
ethics that enjoins upon all Advocates, that they are Officers of
the Court first and Advocates of their clients only thereafter. It is
anguishing to note that such Advocates facilitate the unethical
misadventures of their clients, often encouraging their clients'
dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and
unfortunately bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute. It
has become a vicious and despicable cycle wherein dishonest
litigants with malafide intentions seek out unethical Advocates,
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
who for hefty fee and the lure of attracting similar new and
unscrupulous clients, conveniently choose to disregard and/or
forget all ethics and the code of conduct enjoined upon this august
profession. It is with a heavy heart, that Courts at times note that
clients have no hesitation in replacing good and honest Advocates,
with unscrupulous ones, who go to any dishonest lengths, merely
to secure favourable orders for their clients.
4. The present case and the conduct of the Defendant No. 1 /
Applicant strongly affirms the aforesaid observations. The
Defendant No.1 Shri Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar had throughout
the hearing of his case, remained present and appeared before
the Court with his Counsel as well as the Advocate on record. He
took the assistance of this Court in resolving his issues pertaining
to the Suit, gave undertakings in pursuance of it, obtained consent
orders and also acted in consonance with the same. However,
Defendant No.1 breached one of the undertaking given by him
and being fully aware of the consequences thereof, he craftily
and quickly changed his Advocates (who had already been
previously changed) and briefed Counsel Mr. Mathew Nedumpara,
who in turn advised him to file this Notice of Motion. In this Notice
of Motion, he has stated that all the previous orders passed by this
Court are null and void for reasons which are utterly false and
dishonest to the knowledge of his client Shri Vilas Chandrakant
Gaokar.
5. This malicious and mala-fide Notice of Motion sets out/alleges
totally baseless and contemptible allegations against this Court,
which are completely unacceptable and are a mere shenanigan to
circumvent the action of contempt of Court. This reprehensible
attempt at intimidating and manipulating this Court into not taking
any action under the Law of Contempt calls for censure in the
strongest terms.