Allahabad HC bars lawyer from practising in district court

Pilibhit (UP), Sep 4 The Allahabad High Court has issued a restraining order against senior lawyer Santram Rathore in Pilibhit.

As per the division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, the order prevents Rathore from entering the premises of the district courts and practising within the district judgeship until the next date of a contempt case hearing, which was referred to the High Court (HC) by the district and sessions judge in Pilibhit on July 13.

This is the first instance in the judicial history of Pilibhit that the HC has taken such a stern stance against a lawyer.

The order stems from Rathore's allegations against additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) II, Abhinav Tiwari, during a court proceeding, where he used highly derogatory language towards the court.

The order issued by the bench states that during the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 194 of 2009, State versus Raj Kumar, which pertained to a dowry matter, Rathore represented the victim's side.

It was on July 12 that the case was listed before the ACJM for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Raj Kumar.

During the proceedings, Rathore became incensed and accused the judge of accepting gratification from the accused. Furthermore, he openly declared in court that he had faced contempt proceedings before and cared little for any such actions against him.

Significantly, on the same day, the ACJM forwarded a contempt of court reference against Rathore to the District and Sessions Judge, who promptly sent it to the High Court on July 13 to initiate contempt proceedings.

Following this, Rathore attempted to exert pressure on the ACJM to withdraw the contempt reference. He did so by inciting some female lawyers and law students to hold a protest outside the court and make derogatory remarks against the ACJM, according to the order.

Ultimately, the bench issued a notice to Rathore under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, it restricted him from entering the district court premises and practising until further notice in the matter was scheduled.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor