HIMANK SALUJA Vs. BADSHAH PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was called out for hearing, petitioner in person is not present physically or through virtual mode. No representation is made. However, the Contemnors-Respondent No.1-Badshah Prasad Singh, Respondent No.2-Somnath Verma and Respondent No.3-Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani are present in person.

(2.) The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Ss. 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1971') for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents / contemnors who are guilty of noticeably making scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory and malicious remarks against the Selection Committee to designate Senior Advocate.

(3.) Contemnor No.1 has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.4416/2021 (Badshah Prasad Singh v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and 12 others) on 27/10/2021 for setting aside the notification No.5333/SCDSA/2021 dtd. 14/6/2021 whereby in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Rule 7 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2018 and in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court dtd. 12/10/2017 in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court Of India reported in 2017 (9) SCC 766, this Court in its Full Court meeting dtd. 11/6/2021 has resolved to designate twelve Advocates as Senior Advocates. The contention of contemnor No.1 in the said writ petition was that the Selection Committee to designate the Senior Advocate has adopted non transparent and arbitrary procedure to give benefit to their own relatives and known people and has done arbitrariness, bias, nepotism and has taken unconstitutional process in designation of Senior Advocate.