IN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE versus ----

IN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE versus ----

Ajay Kumar Pandey, an advocate, committed criminal contempt of court by repeatedly filing petitions containing objectionable, abusive, and intemperate language targeting judges and judicial officers. This conduct undermined the authority and dignity of courts, and persistent contumacious attitude justified a deterrent punishment as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Parties
Contemner/applicant: Ajay Kumar Pandey; Respondent Advocate/solicitor General: Santosh N. Hegde
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (criminal) in Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Judgment/disposition
Outcome
Guilty of criminal contempt of court; convicted and sentenced.
Legal Topics
Scandalising the Court, Abusive Language in Pleadings, Advocate's Conduct, Criminal Contempt, Fair Criticism of Judgment, Disciplinary Action Against Advocate
Contempt of Court Professional Misconduct Scandalising the Court Abusive Language in Pleadings Advocate's Conduct Criminal Contempt Fair Criticism of Judgment Disciplinary Action Against Advocate

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Kumar Pandey

Contemner/applicant

Santosh N. Hegde

Respondent Advocate/solicitor General

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (criminal) in Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Judgment/disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of objectionable and intemperate language by an advocate in pleadings amounts to criminal contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether an advocate enjoys any special protection under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  3. 3 Permissibility and limits of fair criticism of judgments

Ratio Decidendi

Ajay Kumar Pandey, an advocate, committed criminal contempt of court by repeatedly filing petitions containing objectionable, abusive, and intemperate language targeting judges and judicial officers. This conduct undermined the authority and dignity of courts, and persistent contumacious attitude justified a deterrent punishment as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court Disposition

Guilty of criminal contempt of court; convicted and sentenced.

Orders

  • The contemner is sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000.
  • In default of payment of fine, contemner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.