N DUTTA MAJUMDAR CHAIRMAN OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO 3 OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF WEST BENGAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made to this court by the Chairman, Disciplinary Committee No.3 of the Bar Council of West Bengal, a Rule directing the contemner/respondent to show cause as to why he will not be committed to prison or suitably dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt of the subordinate court viz. Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, was issued. It appear that the aforesaid Disciplinary Committee by a majority order dated 13.2.74 suspended Jagadish Chandra Consul, an advocate from practice for a period of five years with costs. On 23.2.74, the contemner/respondent Anil Kumar Bose who was a bench clerk in the first court of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, West Bengal, Calcutta, and who had retired from service on 1.1.72 wrote a letter to the Registrar/Secretary, Bar Council of West Bengal. In that letter he stated that he had come to know about the suspension order of Sri J. C. Consul on 22.2.74 in connection with the incident which took place on 16.12.67. Claiming to be an eye witness he wrote, ?It is unthinkable of Sri Consul and this news pained me a lot because it has brought about injustice to Sri Consul who is really a very well behaved and sober Advocate. In fact, he is one of the best few well-behaved lawyers of this Court. I have been seeing him charging the fees from his clients in the court room no.1 in the evenings during 1968 to 1971 when all his clients going satisfied and respects to him . . . . Later on I came to know that there was hand of some Advocates in the incident who wanted to harass Sri J. C. Consul, Advocate but due to his goodness he has been put to face this undue and uncalled for situation . . . Under the circumstances I volunteer myself for, starting the truth before the Disciplinary Committee if so required and request you Sir to reconsider the matter to save Sri Consul from the injustice caused to him.? Thereafter, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee No.3 made a reference to this court under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for dealing with the matter. The contemner/respondent appeared and has shown cause by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. There is also an affidavit-in-reply sworn by the Secretary of the Bar Council of West Bengal.

(2.) Mr. Amal Kumar Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the contemner/respondent raised three points viz. (1) the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of West Bengal was not a court, (2) if a court, it was not a court sub-ordinate to High Court so as to attract the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and (3) the conduct of the contemner/respondent in writing the impugned letter to Bar Council of West Bengal was a bona fide one and was not contumacious in nature.

(3.) Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosh, learned advocate with Mrs. Rama Bhattacharya appearing for Bar Council of West Bengal submitted that having regard to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, it could not but be said that the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of West Bengal was a court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of the provisions as contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the conduct of the contemner/respondent was contumacious in nature inasmuch as by such private communication to Bar Council he attempted to influence it to change its order otherwise than in accordance with law and as such amounted to an attempt to divert or interfere with or obstruct the course of justice and due administration of the law.