Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.1 He also pressed into service these decisions: Tarun Bharat Singh v. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 150], Ramchandra Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [AIR 1983 SC 506], Bal Thackeray, Editor Samna In Re [(1998) 8 SCC 660], Chandan Mitra & Another In Re. [(1998) 8 SCC 554], Sanjoy Narayanan, Editor-in- Chief v. High Court of Allahabad [(2011) 13 SCC 155], Dinabandhu Sahu v. State of Orissa [AIR 1972 SC 180], O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana [(2011) 6 SCC 86] and K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipi [AIR 1976 SC 994].

9.4 Bal Thackeray (supra), Chandan Mitra (supra) and Sanjoy Narayanan (supra) are the decisions cited for the proposition that the apology tendered is with undertaking, it should normally be accepted.

9.5 In O.P Sharma (supra), it was a case where derogatory and abusive language was used by advocate against a Judicial Magistrate on his failure to obtain desired order. There was a suo motu action against him and he was sentenced by the High Court. He tendered unconditional apology on affidavit, where the Court held that acceptance of apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of exception and not a rule. He Apex Court has emphasized as to what is the role and status of lawyers at the beginning of sovereign and democratic India. The Court held that they are considered as intellectual among the elite R/CR.MA/8120/2020 JUDGMENT and the social activists amongst down-trodden. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution also was specially mentioned. The Court also held that lawyers are the officers of the Court in the administration of justice and Bench as well as the Bar has to avoid unwarranted situation or trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in no once interest.