Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Cost on Gram Pradhan for Threatening Petitioner’s Lawyer; Warns Against Intimidation of Legal Professionals
By Rajesh Pandey
In a significant judgment underscoring the dignity of the legal profession and the challenges faced by advocates operating within an overburdened judicial system, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a monetary penalty of ₹25,000 on a Gram Pradhan named Jung Bahadur.
The penalty follows an incident in which Bahadur allegedly abused and threatened the petitioner’s lawyer with potential prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The matter came before the court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bano Bibi, concerning issues related to encroachment in her locality. During earlier proceedings at the tehsil level, the petitioner’s counsel was allegedly subjected to abuse and intimidation by the Gram Pradhan.
However, when the case reached the High Court, Jung Bahadur appeared before the Bench and expressed deep regret for his conduct. In an affidavit submitted to the court, he issued an unconditional apology, stating that he harbored no personal animosity towards the lawyer in question.
He further clarified that he had no intention of undermining the sanctity of the legal profession and pledged not to repeat such behavior in the future.
Justice JJ Munir, who presided over the matter, took a serious view of the incident. In his observations, he expressed deep concern over the increasing disrespect shown towards members of the Bar, despite their pivotal role in upholding justice. He noted:
“It is sad that members of the Bar, who virtually work like soldiers in times of peace to secure justice for citizens, are hurled with words of criticism from all quarters for the slightest human lapse or even matters beyond their control, working as they are under a very strained judicial system.”
The court emphasized that abusing a lawyer over the phone, especially by someone on the opposing side in litigation, is not a trivial matter. Such behavior, the court warned, could amount to criminal contempt.
Justice Munir stated: “In these circumstances, for a member of the public, a litigant on the other side, to abuse a counsel over the telephone is a very serious matter which certainly, in our opinion, borders on criminal contempt.”
While the Bench acknowledged that the conduct could justify being referred to the criminal contempt jurisdiction of the High Court, it chose a more restrained approach, considering the remorse shown by the sixth respondent, Jung Bahadur.
In the order dated July 3, the High Court held:
“We did spare a thought of referring this matter to the criminal contempt Bench, forwarding the sixth respondent to that bench, to be dealt with by law. But, given his unconditional remorse, we eschew that course and, instead, think that ends of justice would be met by administering him a severe warning to be careful in the future and imposing upon him costs of Rs. 25,000/-.”
