Supreme Court Issues Criminal Contempt Notice to MP HC Bar President Over Remarks Against CJI, BCI Leadership
(Judicial Quest News Network)
In a stern assertion of judicial authority, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued a criminal contempt notice to Advocate Dhanya Kumar Jain, President of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur, on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
The apex court’s action originates from a complaint Jain lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, levelling what the BCI termed as “false and scurrilous” allegations against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and the High-Powered Election Committee headed by retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The controversy centres on the ongoing elections for office-bearers of the State Bar Council.
In his letter to the police, Jain reportedly cast aspersions on Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant, accusing him of harbouring “ill-will” against the bar leadership and questioning the CJI’s appointment of Justice Dhulia as head of the election committee.
He further alleged that the CJI’s bench order mandating women’s reservation in bar bodies constituted a “misuse of judicial seat.”
Jain’s complaint also took aim at the Supreme Court’s recent decision refraining from directing registration of an FIR against former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who was embroiled in a controversy following the alleged recovery of a huge cache of cash from his residence during a fire incident.
Describing the episode as a “heinous crime by the judiciary against the democracy of the country,” Jain urged police action.
A Division Bench comprising CJI Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the BCI’s writ petition, where Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, and AoR Radhika Gautam appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Jain’s conduct was “absolutely unfortunate” and warranted “some sort of action.” “This is the restraint of a leader of advocates?” remarked Justice Bagchi pointedly.
Issuing the contempt notice, the Bench directed Jain to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
The BCI had also sought an ex-parte direction to the State authorities to refrain from acting on Jain’s complaint, but the Court declined, observing: “Let him appear… we still hope that some better sense will prevail.
After all, advocates are advocates. But when we find that there is no scope of any sense, then we also know how to deal with senseless people,” stated the CJI.
The matter highlights escalating tensions between bar leadership and regulatory bodies amid contentious state bar elections, with the Supreme Court now poised to adjudicate on the limits of advocacy and judicial contempt.
