The Calcutta High Court has issued a rule of contempt against six lawyers from Basirhat Court who allegedly created chaos inside the courtroom in 2012. They were accused of disrupting trial proceedings, using abusive language against the judge, intimidating litigants, and forcibly evacuating an accused from the courtroom under the pretext of agitation.
A division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi held:
"...6 persons against whom show cause notices were issued in the present proceedings, evacuated some accused in a criminal case in the garb of agitation from inside the courtroom, used abusive language against the Judicial Officer, indulged in slogan shouting against the Judicial Officer when the Court was in seisin, did not allow the Court to discharge judicial functions on that date, coerced litigants inside the courtroom to leave, and prevented the Judicial Officer from passing any orders in judicial proceedings... Materials exist to issue Rule of Contempt against the six persons."
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Condemns Delay in Default Bail Applications Until Chargesheet Submission
The contempt rule was issued against the following individuals:
- Mr. Debabrata Golder
- Mr. Biswajit Ray
- Mr. Ismail Miya
- Mr. Bikash Ghosh
- Mr. Abdul Mamun
- Mr. Kalicharan Mondal
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings stemmed from a reference made by the then Additional District & Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court-III, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas. The judge forwarded a request under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, citing grave misconduct by the six lawyers during a court session on June 6, 2012.
The Registrar General placed the reference before the Zonal Judge, who noted that the matter should be considered by the Chief Justice. On July 2, 2012, the Chief Justice directed the case to a coordinate bench, which then issued show cause notices to the six lawyers.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Questions Police on Detention and Alleged Torture of Students
The case remained pending as the coordinate bench reserved its judgment on August 24, 2012. However, no decision was delivered, and the matter was placed back on the list for review on March 17, 2025.
Court’s Consideration and Findings
When the matter was taken up again, the Senior Advocate representing the alleged contemnors initially raised objections regarding the statute of limitations and the absence of a formal rule issued against his clients. However, during the course of arguments, these contentions were withdrawn.
The court found no issue with the limitation period, as the reference was made in a timely manner. It noted:
"The incident is of June 6, 2012, and the first judicial order passed by the High Court in the judicial side is dated July 3, 2012. We are of the view that the present proceedings are not barred by the limitation prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, since the reference by the Judicial Officer concerned was made within time. The High Court took cognizance of the reference within time, and the matter is still pending."
Allegations Against the Lawyers
The court found sufficient grounds to proceed with contempt charges based on the following acts:
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Directs State to Control Student Unrest at Jadavpur University Amid Violent Clashes
- Forcefully evacuating an accused from the courtroom
- Using abusive language against the Judicial Officer
- Shouting slogans against the judge while the court was in session
- Preventing the court from performing its judicial duties
- Coercing litigants to leave the courtroom
- Obstructing judicial proceedings by preventing the judge from passing orders
Court’s Decision
Considering the gravity of the misconduct, the High Court issued the contempt rule under Form 2 of Appendix I of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the six lawyers. The rule is returnable on March 28, 2025.
Senior counsel representing the alleged contemnors informed the court that his clients would accept the contempt rule from the Sheristadar of the Basirhat Sub-Divisional Court.
