Guwahati: The Gauhati high court has convicted a lawyer in Assam for contempt for his remarks on the jewellery of a woman judge of a subordinate court and for demeaning her by comparing her to a “mythical character” – a demon.
Hearing suo motu case, a division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Devashis Baruah granted bail to the advocate Utpal Goswami on a personal bond of Rs 10,000.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The high court will again hear the matter on March 20 and decide the quantum of punishment against the convicted lawyer from Assam’s Jorhat.
The HC in its order that advocate Utpal Goswami has been charged with criminal contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
“Several other allegations have been made to portray the concerned judicial officer in a demeaning manner and (he) has attacked her understanding of law as well as derogated her personality in many ways by even comparing her to a mythical character in Purana/Mahabharat, known as Bhasmasur,” the court observed.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The advocate, in his defence affidavit filed on January 17, “has pleaded guilty to the charge. He has specifically admitted that he had come to realise that respect of judges and magistrates of any court should be preserved and protected by the establishment of peace, order, harmony and tranquillity in human society,” the order said.
“Further, he has admitted that he has committed the crime due to insufficient knowledge of law and its practice and hence he tendered his unconditional apology as this is his first offence and he assured the court that he shall never repeat this type of behaviour in future (sic),” the bench noted in its order.
The HC order said that the “petitioner has made a scathing comment that the presiding officer has been presiding over the court by wearing jewellery like a model on a ramp and that on each and every occasion she tried to overpower/depress the advocates by citing unnecessary case laws and sections of statutes without hearing the advocates and tried to control the court room behaving like a Gangue (sic)”