In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has recused itself from hearing a writ petition after advocate Vijay Kurle made serious and unfounded allegations against the judges, accusing them of acting "hand in glove" with the opposing party. The division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna, in an order dated April 15, 2025, also initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate and directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an inquiry into his professional conduct.
"We would have certainly taken the matter to its logical conclusion despite such scurrilous attempts to interfere in the administration of justice... However, considering the solemn principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done, we would not proceed to hear this case," the bench stated.
The case stemmed from a writ petition filed by the mother and brother-in-law of a man involved in a matrimonial dispute with his wife. The man had been ordered to pay maintenance to his wife, and the petitioners sought to challenge this on grounds of perjury, even requesting the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the wife and her advocate.
The matter was listed for advocate Kurle to make submissions. However, instead of arguing the case, he informed the court that he had written to his clients seeking discharge from the case. The judges, upon reading the contents of the letter, noted that it not only called for their recusal but also contained statements that they believed were aimed at creating a false record to prevent the bench from continuing to hear the matter.
When questioned in open court, Kurle reiterated his allegations, accusing the judges of bias and of being in collusion with the wife.
"Mr. Kurle has crossed all limits of legitimacy as expected from an officer of the Court, when in open Court he states that the Court is hand in glove with the respondents, without any material whatsoever,"
the judges remarked. They emphasized that such conduct amounted to a direct attack on the dignity of the judiciary and gross interference in the administration of justice.
The 24-page order also detailed Kurle’s past behavior, describing his hostility not only towards the bench but also towards fellow advocates. The judges cited multiple occasions where he disrupted proceedings, raised his voice, and refused to let others speak.
"Mr. Kurle appears to believe that once he dons the robes of an advocate, he can dictate even to the Court," the bench observed, adding that his conduct was "anathema to the process of law and the solemnity of administration of justice."
The court further referenced prior judgments, including observations by the Supreme Court in Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors, where the apex court criticized Kurle for making scandalous allegations against its judges. In another instance, Justice Madhav Jamdar of the Bombay High Court had also directed the Bar Council to investigate Kurle's conduct after he allegedly tried to delay a case by seeking unnecessary adjournments despite the matter being completely heard.
Lawyers who try to browbeat or threaten judges have to be dealt with firmly, the Supreme Court had noted in that case, emphasizing that such behavior from officers of the court undermines public confidence in the judicial system.
In light of the present incident, the Bombay High Court directed the registry to issue a show-cause notice to Vijay Kurle asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The notice is returnable on April 29, 2025. Additionally, the judges instructed that no matter in which Kurle appears should be placed before their bench.
The bench also ordered the Bar Council to expedite the enquiry into Kurle’s conduct and complete it within ten weeks. They emphasized the importance of maintaining dignity in court proceedings and ensuring that neither advocates nor litigants attempt to derail justice through intimidation or misconduct.
The long and iron hands of law are sufficient enough to deal with such situations,the judges concluded.
Case Title: Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court (Writ Petition 6700 of 2018)
