SC awards 3-month jail to lawyer for contempt, suspends sentence on apology

The Supreme Court Wednesday sentenced advocate Mathews J Nedumpara to three months in jail for contempt of court and attempting to "browbeat" judges but suspended the sentence after taking note of the unconditional apology tendered by him.

The apex court, which barred the advocate from practising before it for a year, said the jail sentence will be suspended only if Nedumpara abides by the undertaking that he will never attempt to browbeat judges of the top court and the Bombay High Court.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran, meanwhile, issued fresh contempt notice to Nedumpara and three others for "scandalous allegations" levelled against both the judges in a letter addressed to the President of India, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and other judges of the top court and the Bombay High Court.

On March 12, the top court had held him guilty of contempt for taking the name of noted jurist Fali S Nariman, the father of Justice R F Nariman, to allege that sons and daughters of judges were given priority in awarding 'senior advocate' designation and had said that he has attempted to browbeat the courts.

It had issued notice to the lawyer on the punishment to be imposed on him for committing contempt of court and had sought his response within two weeks.

The issue of contempt had cropped up when the bench was hearing a petition filed by an organisation, National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, which was represented by Nedumpara during the hearing.

In its order on Wednesday, the bench said: "We sentence Mathews J Nedumpara to three month imprisonment in jail which is suspended only if Mathews J Nedumpara, in future, continues to abide by the undertaking/affidavit (given by him).

"Mathews J Nedumpara is otherwise barred from practising as an advocate before the Supreme Court for a period of one year."
During the arguments on point of punishment to be imposed on Nedumpara, Justice Nariman said: "Are you (Nedumpara) aware that I have a daughter who is a practising lawyer and she is not allowed to enter this court? Are you aware that Justice U U Lalit's (sitting apex court judge) father is a lawyer?"
When Nedumpara said he had raised an issue-based matter in the plea filed by his organisation, Justice Nariman said, "The issue is not Fali Nariman but about relatives practising as advocate before judges. Justice Lalit's issue was not mentioned and this shows it is not issue based."
However, the bench said, "Having held Nedumpara guilty of contempt of court, can other bench deal with the issue of punishment? Today, the issue is only about punishment."
To this, Justice Saran observed, "The same gentleman (Nedumpara) had filed a writ petition to not allow him (Fali S Nariman) to practice (as an advocate) here (apex court). Do not go into all that."