- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nand Lal Balwani, Re
Factual and Procedural Background
While the Bench was in session, Mr. Nand Lal Balwani—an advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar Association since 1995 who had no matter listed before the Bench—shouted slogans and hurled his shoe toward the Court, disrupting proceedings. He was immediately informed that such conduct constituted gross contempt of court. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, he was given an opportunity to respond and filed an affidavit the same day. The Court heard him, considered his affidavit, and proceeded to decide the contempt matter summarily.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the contemner’s in-court conduct amounted to gross criminal contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether the unqualified apology tendered by the contemner should be accepted.
- What punishment, if any, should be imposed for the established contempt.
Arguments of the Parties
Contemner's Arguments
- Admitted his “intemperate behaviour” and tendered an unqualified apology, asserting he had no intention to disrespect the Court.
- Stated he had been persecuted by “all police agencies,” suggesting this stress contributed to his conduct and requested an opportunity to file a more detailed affidavit.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court invoked Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which allows summary punishment for contempt committed in the Court’s presence after the contemner is apprised of the charge and given an opportunity to defend. Observing both the words and deeds of the contemner, the Court held that his actions were aimed at intimidating the judiciary and interfering with the administration of justice, thereby constituting gross criminal contempt. The Bench emphasized that membership of the Bar does not confer immunity from contempt proceedings.
Regarding the apology, the Court found it neither bona fide nor genuine, noting the contemner’s demeanor and concluding that the apology was offered merely to evade punishment rather than out of true remorse. Consequently, the Court rejected the apology and deemed a deterrent sentence necessary to maintain the dignity of the judiciary and prevent future misconduct.
Holding and Implications
The Court found Mr. Nand Lal Balwani guilty of gross criminal contempt and sentenced him to four months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000, with a further two months’ imprisonment in default of payment.
The contemner was taken into custody immediately to serve the sentence. The ruling underscores that disruptive conduct by advocates will attract swift and deterrent punishment, reinforcing that the legal profession enjoys no special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act. No broader legal precedent was set beyond affirming summary contempt powers under Section 14.
1. This morning while the court proceedings were going on, Mr Nand Lal Balwani, who claims to be an advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar Association since 1995, and had apparently no case on the Board of this Bench, shouted slogans in the open court and thereafter hurled his shoe towards the Court thereby interrupting the court proceedings. He was informed that his action was aimed at intimidating the Court and causing interference in the conduct of judicial proceedings and amounted to gross contempt of this Court. He was informed of the charge and asked if he had anything to say in his defence. At his request, time was given to him to file an affidavit in response to the charge. The affidavit has been filed.
2. Mr Nand Lal Balwani is present before us and accepts that the charge has been read out to him and he has understood the same. He states that he has filed this affidavit in which he has admitted his intemperate behaviour in the Court this morning. The contemner was asked if he had anything further to say in his defence and he stated that he did not have anything further to say in his defence but that he had filed an interim affidavit and would like to file a detailed affidavit giving details of how he had been persecuted by the police agencies so far. We do not consider it necessary to examine him any further on that aspect since insofar as the charge of contempt of court is concerned, he has nothing further to say.
3. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that when it appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the court, inform him about the charges and afford him an opportunity to make his defence. An order of punishment or discharge can thereafter be made.
4. The action of the contemner, both by his words and deeds, in the presence of the Court amounts to gross criminal contempt of court. His action was aimed at intimidating the Court and causing interference in judicial proceedings. It is unfortunate and we feel rather concerned that a person belonging to the Bar should have behaved in this manner. Law does not give a lawyer, unsatisfied with the result of any litigation, licence to permit himself the liberty of causing disrespect to the court or attempting, in any manner, to lower the dignity of the court. A lawyer does not enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act where he is found to have committed a gross contempt of court. Courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. The action of the respondent is most reprehensible and has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and undermines the dignity of the court and the majesty of law. From the manner in which the contemner has behaved, a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt to impair the administration of justice is discernible.
5. From the affidavit filed by the contemner, he appears to be aggrieved of alleged suffering at “the hands of all police agencies”. This was, however, no way to ventilate his grievances against the police agencies. As a lawyer, he should have known better. It is most unbefitting for an advocate to act in the manner in which the contemner acted. No system of justice can tolerate such type of behaviour. In the established facts and circumstances of the case, the contemner has committed gross criminal contempt and we hold him guilty as such.
6. In the affidavit the contemner has tendered unqualified apology. He states:
“I tender an unqualified apology for my intemperate behaviour in the Court this morning. I have been through a harrowing time and have been very disturbed in the matter of the present litigations.
I have no intention of causing any disrespect to this Hon'ble Court in any manner lowering the dignity of this Hon'ble Court.
I once again tender my unqualified apology. I say that during the period that I have been practising as a lawyer I never caused any disrespect to the legal system.”
7. The apology tendered by the contemner does not appear to us to be at all bona fide and genuine in view of his attitude exhibited in court during his questioning and seems to have been made only to escape punishment. He does not appear to be repentant at all. We, therefore, do not accept the apology.
8. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence committed by the contemner it is necessary to impose deterrent punishment on him so that it serves as an example to others and no one indulges in repetition of such acts. We, therefore, sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs 2000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
9. The contemner is present in court. He shall be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence.
Alert