[ad_1]
The Gujarat High Court on Monday commenced contempt proceedings of its own accord against appointed senior advocate Percy Kavina for allegedly using “unparliamentary” language and “disparaging” a stand-alone judge and, therefore, allegedly “degrades the majesty and dignity of the institution”.
The incident occurred when Kavina was arguing before the Court of Justice Devan Desai on First Appeal 1979 on 7 July when he was alleged to have used “unparliamentary language” while addressing the judge.
A panel of Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengedey commenced contempt proceedings against Kavina under Section 215 of the Indian Constitution and provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court directed the administrative side of the High Commissioner to register the matter as contempt proceedings on his own.
Noting that the Chief Adviser used “unparliamentary language”, the Division Board recorded that Kavina made a statement along the lines of “Ari sahab, kai toh sharam rakhu (Sir, take some shame)”. The court further recorded, “Apart from using the above-mentioned phrases, we also found that he used insulting language.”
The council also directed the Registrar General to “make a report of the incident containing all the details” and also directed him to “inquire for the address of the chief solicitor” to issue notice, if necessary, at a later stage.
Kavina, who was present before the oath panel on Monday, asked the court to refrain from starting the proceedings. He sought to be allowed to contact the judge concerned who had made his said excessive remarks and to allow him to offer his unqualified apology. He also requested that he be given the opportunity to explore informal avenues of settlement before the court begins formal proceedings.
“There is a lot of history in this. If excessive language is used by me, after these proceedings have been initiated, I shall have nothing to say unless I try to justify my behaviour… Therefore, I urge that before initiating these proceedings in a formal manner, if the solution Informal possible, I prefer to ask Your Honor to explore that… Initiating these proceedings in itself is very dangerous… Is this behavior culpable? I agree that it was. In litigation I can make many excuses as to why I have come to those The stage I’m at but that’s not the purpose, that’s the ‘ifs’ and the ‘but’.So he asked not to register this case.
In response, Judge Sobhiah said, “What you have done is also a very serious matter… It is a very serious crime that has weakened the grandeur and dignity of the court… In order to make sure that the appropriate facts are collected, we do not issue a notice.”
The bench allowed Cavenna to explore his options and return before the 2:30 p.m. divisional bench.
After that, Kavina apologized to Judge Desai in the second court session. Kavina admitted before Judge Desai’s court that he had made “non-extreme remarks” which had caused the judiciary to “discredit” and said: “As I was thinking of Sober, I realized that I had tried to find a correction. I was also somewhat under the wrong impression because of the hearing which took place On that day your lordship was kind enough to join in the reprieve. I was mistaken in the belief that your lordship had condoned my submission at that time. I understood that my submissions were gratuitous and gratuitous and I regretted it. I apologize unconditionally and withdraw those Requisitions. And I shall also in penance not reappear in this matter. In furtherance of the order passed on 7.7.2023… I regret the language, tone, and contents of my submissions, especially those made in the vernacular.”
After Kavina’s apology, Justice Desai recorded an order, “It is the submission of Chief Beneficiary Counsel Mr. Percy Kavina to accept his unconditional apology. It has also been made by Chief Solicitor Mr. Percy Kavina that only the court concerned can accept or reject the unconditional apology given by him.. In light of the above reports, this Court is of the opinion that what happened on 07.07.2023, should not have happened and the words used by the learned Senior Counsellor Mr. Percy Cavina were insulting.As the proposed sudden contempt action has not yet commenced, the Chief Educated Counsellor Mr. Percy Cavina may To ask the respected department board concerned for an unqualified apology.”
Given the single judge’s order not to record whether or not the court decided to accept the apology, the oath bench has now begun proceedings. This issue has been retained for further study until July 17.
[ad_2]
