REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 191 OF 2019

NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN

FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND
REFORMS & ORS. …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …Respondent(s)

1. In the course of arguments in the present Writ Petition, Shri

Mathews Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners, alleged that Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to

designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate

Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates. On being asked whether such

a designation should be granted as a matter of bounty, Shri

Nedumpara took the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by

the Court, he took Shri Fali S. Nariman’s name again. Thereafter, on

being questioned by the Court as to what the relevance of taking the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by R
NATARAJAN
Date: 2019.03.12
16:38:48 IST
Reason:

name of Shri Fali S. Nariman was, he promptly denied having done so.

1
It was only when others present in Court confirmed having heard him

take the learned Senior Advocate’s name, that he attempted to justify

the same, but failed to offer any adequate explanation.

2. We are of the view that the only reason for taking the learned

Senior Advocate’s name, without there being any relevance to his

name in the present case, is to browbeat the Court and embarrass one

of us. Shri Nedumpara then proceeded to make various statements

unrelated to the matter at hand. He stated that, “Your Lordships have

enormous powers of contempt, and Tihar Jail is not so far.” He further

submitted that lawyers are like Judges and are immune from contempt,

as they are protected by law. He also stated that there can be no

defamation against a lawyer, as also there can be no contempt

proceedings against a lawyer, as the same would impinge on the

independence of lawyers, which they ought to enjoy to the fullest. All

these statements directly affect the administration of justice, and is

contempt in the face of the Court.

3. This is not the first time that this particular advocate has

attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of this Court. In point of fact,

the style of this particular advocate is to go on arguing, quoting Latin

maxims, and when he finds that the Court is not with him, starts

2
becoming abusive. We also find that this advocate is briefed to appear

in hopeless cases and attempts, by browbeating the Court, to get

discretionary orders, which no Court is otherwise prepared to give. We

have found that the vast majority of appearances by this advocate

before us have been in cases in which debtors have persistently

defaulted, as a result of which their mortgaged properties have to be

handed over to secured creditors to be sold in auction. It is at this

stage that Shri Nedumpara is briefed to somehow put off the auction

sale. Even the present Writ Petition is a case in which a review petition

against the judgment of this Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court

of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 has already been dismissed. With full

knowledge that a second review petition is barred by Order XLVII Rule

5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Shri Nedumpara seeks a second

review in the form of a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India. Quite apart from this, the said advocate has

already indulged in conduct unbecoming of an advocate, which has

been noticed by an order dated 19.11.2018 in Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No.26424 of 2018, which is set out hereinbelow:

“O R D E R
1. I.A. Nos. 163019 of 2018,163020 of 2018 and 164145
of 2018 in S.L.P. (C) No. 26424 of 2018 are dismissed.

3
Shri Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate for the Petitioner,
appeared before us on 22 nd October, 2018. He stated
that Rs.80 lakhs would be paid within a period of four
weeks from 22nd October, 2018. The Court granted him a
period of one week from 22nd October, 2018 to make the
necessary payment. The order clearly stated:
“If the aforesaid payment is not made within
one week, the special leave petition shall be
dismissed without further reference to this
Court.”
2. No such payment was made within the period of one
week and hence, the special leave petition stood
dismissed without further reference to this Court.
However, on 14th November, 2018, Shri Nedumpara,
appearing with an AOR, mentioned the same matter
before us without informing us that the S.L.P. had
already stood dismissed without reference to this Court.
By suppressing the order dated 22nd October, 2018, Shri
Nedumpara obtained an order from this very Bench on
14th November, 2018 stating:
“List on Monday, the 19th November, 2018 along
with IA No. 163019/2018 - Application for
Modification of Order and IA No. 163020/2018 -
Application for Direction.”
3. When the matter was listed before us today, we
repeatedly asked Shri Nedumpara, why he did not
disclose to us the order dated 22 nd October, 2018 when
the matter was mentioned before us on 14 th November,
2018. To this, there was no answer. We then warned
Shri Nedumpara that as a counsel appearing before the
Court, his primary duty is to disclose all material facts to
the Court before obtaining any order from the Court. We
have warned him that such unbecoming conduct of an
advocate who appears before this Court, will be sternly
dealt with should any future incident of a like nature arise
before this Court. We were inclined to impose heavy
costs but have not done so only because the appellant,

4
 for whom Shri Nedumpara appears, already appears to
be in dire straits financially.”

4. We also find that Shri Nedumpara has misconducted himself

repeatedly before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bombay and before the

Bombay High Court. This is reflected in certain orders passed by the

Bombay High Court. Thus, in High Court on its own Motion v.

Nedumpara Mathews, Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 9 of

2012, an order dated 18.09.2012 recorded:

“1. …… Mr. Mathews has disrupted the proceedings of

the Court and refused to conclude, insisting that the
Court is a servant of justice and is bound to hear him. No
member of the Bar or Litigant can insist that the
mentioning of matters or their listing should be at his or
her convenience. Mr. Mathews is habituated to being
disruptive in Court. Several Benches of this Court have
directed the Registry not to list his matters before those
Benches. Today, despite efforts to make him see reason,
Mr. Mathews has persisted in disrupting the proceedings,
preventing matters from being called out. Before we
passed this order, which we do with extreme
circumspection, we have put Mr. Mathews on notice that
should he continue to disrupt the proceedings of the
Court, the Court would have no option but to issue a
notice to show cause under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Unfortunately, there has
been no change in his behaviour.
2. …… If any member of the Bar or the litigating public is
allowed to compel the Court to take up a matter at his
own convenience, the orderly functioning of the Court will
be seriously affected. Mr. Mathews has persisted in

5
 disrupting the proceedings and has not heeded to being
counselled.
3. In the circumstances, the registry is directed to issue a
notice to show cause to Mr. Nedumpara Mathews,
Advocate calling upon him to state as to why
proceedings should not be adopted against him under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The hearing of the
notice shall be placed before the appropriate Bench in
accordance with the assignment of work.”

In Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer, Notice of Motion

(L) no. 175 of 2013 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2772 of 2012, by order

dated 20.06.2013, a suo motu notice for criminal contempt was issued

by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, stating as follows:

“5. When the present Notice of Motion was called out on

8 May 2013, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Authorized Officer of Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., (the
Respondent No. 2 herein) tendered an Affidavit dated 25
March 2013 of Mr. A. S. Tambe, Assistant General
Manager of Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., which
indicates that a person posing himself as a Sitting Judge
of this Court spoke to Mr. A. S. Tambe from a mobile
phone which is traced to be that of Mr. Mathews J.
Nedumpara.”
xxx xxx xxx
“8. It is submitted that the affidavit states that Mr. Tambe
had a conversation with a person having Mobile Number
viz: 9820535428 and the person at the other end told
him that, “I am (name of a sitting Judge of this Court)
here, Matthews is before me. Ask your Advocate to call
me.” The affidavit of Tambe, further states that the said
mobile belongs to the firm of Advocates – M/s.

6
Nedumpara and Nedumpara, who appear for the
Petitioner.
9. In view of the above affidavit, on 13 June 2013 after
hearing the parties, this Court directed the service
providers – Vodafone Ltd. and Idea Cellular Ltd. to place
on record the call details of three cell numbers –
9820535428, 9819846333 and 8108066202 for 4 March
2013 and 5 March 2013. This information was necessary
to determine whether there is any element of truth in the
allegations made in the affidavit dated 25 March 2013 of
Mr. Tambe.
10. Today, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the said
service providers, placing on record the call details.
Copies of the affidavits filed by the service providers are
also served upon Advocate Mr. Nedumpara in Court. We
also directed the service of a copy of the affidavit of Mr.
A. S. Tambe dated 25 March 2013 which was kept in a
sealed cover, upon Advocate Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara
and the same was done in our presence. On perusal of
the call records, we find that there has been contact
between the above three mobile cell numbers.
11. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of Vodafone (India)
Ltd. the number 9820535428 is subscribed in the name
of Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara and mobile number
9819846333 is of Mr. Sanjeev Mohan Tejwani, who is
son of the Petitioner. While as per the affidavit filed on
behalf of Idea Cellular Ltd., the mobile number
8108066202 is subscribed in the name of Mr. Sanjay V.
Kale address at Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. Chembur,
Mumbai 400 071. Learned Counsel for Respondent-
Bank states that mobile no. 8108066202 is presently
being used by Mr. A. S. Tambe, Assistant General
Manager of the RespondentBank. Advocate Mr. Mathews
J. Nedumpara admits that the mobile no. 9820535428 is
his own mobile number.
12. In view of the contents of the affidavits of service
providers, it appears that the statements made in the
affidavit of Mr. A. S. Tambe if correct, would amount to

7
 criminal contempt on the part of the person who spoke
from cell no. 9820535428 to Mr. A. S. Tambe. As per the
record of Vodafone, the said cell number is of Advocate
Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara and Mr. Mathews J.
Nedumpara admits that it is his mobile number. In view
of the above, it appears that this is a fit case for initiating
Suo Motu proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and Advocate Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara be
joined as respondent No. 1 and State of Maharashtra as
respondent No. 2 in the Suo Motu Contempt
Proceedings.
13. The Registry to issue notice to Mr. Mathews J.
Nedumpara to show cause why appropriate action
should not be taken against him for Criminal Contempt
as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Since,
this Court is only issuing a notice and not issuing a rule
at this stage, no further observations are called for.”

In International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Phoenix

Alchemy Pvt. Ltd., Company Petition No. 423 of 2010, by an order

dated 01.03.2014, the Bombay High Court devoted several paragraphs

under the caption “The Conduct of Mr. Mathews Nedumpara,

Advocate for the ex-Directors”. Excerpts under this sub-head read as

follows:

“58. When I told Mr. Nedumpara that he would have his

turn to argue after the Advocate for the Official
Liquidator, he was adamant and insisted on raising this
issue of maintainability. He was addressing the Court in
an aggressive, discourteous and offensive manner. This
went on for quite a few minutes, during which time I was
repeatedly requesting him to take his seat and await his
turn. During this time, he was not even willing to listen to

8
the Court and kept addressing the Court and making
remarks that were most inappropriate and to the effect
that he is not getting an opportunity of being heard and
that he was used to ‘insults’ from the Court.
59. It was clear to me that this was nothing but a stalling
tactic to ensure that the matter on the Official Liquidators
Report does not proceed. All through these initial few
minutes his demeanour was loud, brash and
disrespectful. The Court was crowded and it was almost
as if Mr. Nedumpara was playing to the galleries, as
much of what he was saying had little to do with the
matter or for that matter his point of maintainability.”
xxx xxx xxx
“62. Finally, when Mr. Nedumpara was asked to address
the Court in response to the Official Liquidators Report,
he insisted on addressing the Court only on the issue of
maintainability of a Petition at the instance of Secured
Creditors who had adopted (or as he put it “elected”)
other remedies. Even during this part of the hearing, Mr.
Nedumpara was extremely disrespectful and offensive in
the manner in which he addressed the Court. Just
because the Court wanted him to address it on the
Official Liquidators Report, he repeatedly said how he is
not being heard. His tone and tenor was accusatory,
often times breaking into Latin Maxims in the context of
his most improper suggestion that he is not being heard
or that he was being treated unfairly.
63. This went on again for quite a few minutes during
which time he resolutely refused to address even a
single query from the Court or address the Court on the
merits of the matter/Official Liquidator’s Report that was
before the Court.
64. Mr. Nedumpara’s demeanour was obstructive and to
my mind intended to interfere with the administration of
justice and lower the dignity and authority of the Court. In
a situation such as this, in my opinion, the Court would
have been entitled to take note of the conduct of Mr.
Nedumpara as contempt in the face of the Court and

9
 deal with it summarily and immediately or to direct the
issuance of a Show Cause Notice to treat it as ‘criminal
contempt’ under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read
with the Rules framed thereunder.”
xxx xxx xxx
“69. These judgments establish that conduct of
Advocates, such as has been described by me in the
foregoing paragraphs of the Order, can constitute
sufficient reason to issue Show Cause Notice for criminal
contempt or to be dealt with immediately and summarily
as contempt committed in the face of the Court.
70. Having said that, in this case I have done neither. Let
this Order be a strict and final warning to Mr. Mathew
Nedumpara that the Court will not tolerate this conduct
and if such conduct is repeated in the future, the Court
may be constrained to act.”

5. As a sequel to this order, Shri Nedumpara filed an application in

which he requested that the aforesaid Single Judge of the Bombay

High Court should recuse himself from hearing matters in which

Advocate Nedumpara appears for one of the parties. This application

was dealt with by an order dated 23.12.2014 in Brian Castellino v.

Official Liquidator of M/s. RTec Systems Pvt. Ltd., Official Liquidators

Report No. 347 of 2014 in Company Petition No. 452 of 2010. In the

course of submissions made before the learned Single Judge, a

compilation was submitted by one of the learned counsel. This is

reflected in paragraph 13 of the said order as follows:

10
“13. Mr. Kapadia has submitted a compilation, inter alia,
containing (i) orders passed by the Single Judges and
Division Benches of this Court setting out the conduct of
Advocate Nedumpara in the matters that he appears, (ii)
resolutions passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Mumbai, resolving not to take up any matters where
Advocate Nedumpara and/or his Juniors appear and (iii)
criminal complaints filed against Advocate Nedumpara
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai for serious
offences. Mr. Kapadia has from the said compilation of
documents/orders pointed out as follows:
(i) That three of the Division Benches and three Single
Judges of this Court have recused themselves in matters
where Advocate Nedumpara has appeared.
(ii) The Division Bench comprising of A.H. Joshi and M.L.
Tahaliyani, JJ. has whilst recusing itself vide order dated
22nd May, 2013 in Writ Petition (L) No. 1272 of 2013
recorded the conduct of Advocate Nedumpara and his
client as follows:
“1. An affidavit in answer to query put by the
Court is filed.
2. In the affidavit the Petitioner has used
language as his Advocate’s opinion, expressing
impropriety on the part of court in putting
questions to the petitioner. The language
exhibits total lack of etiquettes of drafting and
lack of respect to the court akin to insinuation.
3. Since the litigant and counsel do not respect
the court and express anguish with
discourteous language, it is considered
necessary that this bench should not hear this
case. Hence we recuse.
4. Liberty to move before the appropriate
court.”
(iii) That by an order dated 18th September, 2012, a
Single Judge of this Court has issued suo motu criminal
contempt notices against Advocate Nedumpara.

11
(iv) That by an order dated 20 th June, 2013, a Division
Bench of this Court have issued suo motu criminal
contempt notices against Advocate Nedumpara.
(v) That by an order dated 9 th April, 2014, passed by a
Division Bench of this Court it has been observed that
Advocate Nedumpara has made reckless, irresponsible
and contemptuous allegations against the Bench and the
opponents. After recording an apology of Advocate
Nedumpara which is noted as ‘belated’, the Division
Bench has expressed in paragraph 13 that a message
goes to all advocates including M/s. Nedumpara &
Nedumpara so that in future, this Court has no occasion
to observe anything or initiate any proceedings. Mr.
Kapadia submitted that the aforesaid observations are in
the context of an attempt on the part of the juniors of
Advocate Nedumpara to approach one of the members
of the Bench at his residence and the apologies were for
addressing a letter thereafter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice
making allegations against the learned Judge who
refused to give a hearing to the juniors at his residence.
(vi) That by an order dated 1 st October, 2014, a Division
Bench of this Court rejected the request for recusal
made by Advocate Nedumpara.
(vii) That Advocate Nedumpara addressed letters to the
President of India, Vice President of India, Prime Minister
of India, Home Minister of India. Chief Minister of
Maharashtra, Minister for law and justice, Leader of
Opposition, etc. making wild, baseless, contemptuous
allegations against the Constitutional functionaries of this
Court.
(viii) That a Resolution dated 19 th May, 2014 was passed
by all three learned Presiding Officers of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai (DRT) resolving that no
matters of Advocate Nedumpara or his juniors be listed
before them. The Resolution is reproduced hereunder:
“A very unfortunate and shocking situation has
been created today by Advocate Mr. Mathews
J. Nedumpara along with his juniors Mr.

12
 Navneet Krishnan, Mr. Nishant, Ms. Rohini and
alleged clients in the open Court Hall of DRT I,
II, III and that to the extent that the smooth
functioning of the Tribunal has come to halt and
justice delivery system has got obstructed.
They have willingly and intentionally created
this scenario in the open court with ulterior
motive. The dignity and trust of the Tribunal has
been lowered down and all the Officers and
staff of the Tribunal has been offended.
Presiding Officers of the Tribunals have to retire
to their chambers and complaint has also been
lodged with the police by the Presiding Officer
of DRT I, Mumbai in this regard. We are
apprehending that this kind of bad and
turbulent situation may again take place and
working of the Tribunals may be disturbed.
Considering the dimension and seriousness of
the situation we all felt that this situation may
be adverted by taking Resolution that we
should not take up the matters in which the
aforesaid Advocates are engaged. The litigants
may engage other lawyers in the cases in
which the above Advocates are engaged.
Meanwhile the Registry is directed to shortlist
the cases in which the above said lawyers are
engaged and not to place their cases before
the Tribunal. This Resolution be notified for
information.
Copy of this Resolution is also transmitted to
Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT Mumbai for
necessary information and needful.
Dated this 19th May, 2014”.
(ix) That a complaint has been filed by the DRT, Mumbai,
alleging criminal offences committed by Advocate
Nedumpara.”

13
A reading of this paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Shri

Nedumpara is in the habit of terrorising Tribunal members and using

intemperate language to achieve his ends before several Judges of the

Bombay High Court. The order dated 23.12.2014 then went on to

state:

“33. In present times, a huge number of disputes are

brought before the Courts for adjudication. The monetary
stakes involved in the matters are also very substantial.
In other cases, personal status of parties is involved, and
these matters are invariably emotionally charged. The
demands of the litigants over their Advocates have
seemingly increased. Many dishonest/ desperate
litigants along with some lawyers, who are not as honest
as they are expected to be, leave no stone unturned to
avoid a Judge that they perceive to be inconvenient or
unfavourable or to obfuscate issues or to delay the
proceedings and frustrate the course of justice. To
achieve this end, they attempt to criticize judges, cast
uncalled for aspersions on Judges with the intention that
the Judge so attacked will give up the matter. A judge
who is showered with criticisms and insinuations, though
baseless, may be inclined to recuse himself so as to stay
out of harm’s way of the baseless suspicion or allegation
or to avoid being unpopular or to just avoid taking over
the burden of a matter which is intentionally made
heavier by litigants and/or their Advocates. However, as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy’s
case (supra), a Judge who prefers the recusal route
despite knowing that the criticisms/insinuations made
against him are baseless, would not be true to his oath of
dispensing justice without fear or favour. In my view, a
Judge would be failing in his duty if he endeavours to
become popular amongst the members of the bar or
members of the public by avoiding difficult situations or
following the route of appeasement. A Judge accepts

14
judgeship to dispense justice without fear or favour and
not to attain popularity of any kind. Again, he will not be
true to his oath if he feels that it is convenient to recuse
himself from a matter rather than facing a lawyer or a
litigant who gives him sleepless nights by criticizing him
or casting aspersions on him which are totally incorrect
and untrue. In this regard, the observations made in the
case of Triodos Bank NV vs. Dobbs, [(2005) EWCA 468]
are apposite:
“It is always tempting for a judge against whom
criticisms are made to say that he would prefer
not to hear further proceedings in which the
critic is involved. It is tempting to take that
course because the judge will know that the
critic is likely to go away with a sense of
grievance if the decision goes against him.
Rightly or wrongly a litigant who does not have
confidence in the Judge who hears his case will
feel that if he loses, he has in some way been
discriminated against. But it is important for a
judge to resist the temptation to recuse himself
simply because it would be more comfortable to
do so. The reason is that – If judges were to
recuse themselves whenever a litigant –
whether it be a represented litigant or a litigant
in person – criticized them (which sometimes
happens not infrequently) we would soon reach
the position in which litigants were able to
select judges to hear their cases, simply by
criticizing all the judges that they did not want
to hear their case. It would be easy for a litigant
to produce a situation in which a judge felt
obliged to recuse himself simply because he
had been criticized – whether that criticism was
justified or not.”
34. I am therefore of the view that the grounds on which
the Application of recusal is made by Advocate
Nedumpara and his client are wholly baseless and
unfounded. I have no doubt that the present Application

15
 seeking recusal of this Court, to borrow the language of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to avoid this Court,
obfuscate issues, delay the proceedings and frustrate
the course of justice. The Application is therefore
rejected. I have decided not to deal with the compilation
of documents relied upon by Mr. Kapadia in support of
his contention. Instead I would rather join Mr. Chinoy, the
Learned Amicus Curiae, in advising Advocate
Nedumpara to introspect and find fault with oneself
before finding faults with others. I may end by expressing
a sincere hope that the assurance given by Advocate
Nedumpara to this Court that he takes the advice of Mr.
Aspi Chinoy to heart, that he will introspect and correct
himself wherever he has gone wrong, is fulfilled in the
right spirit.”

6. In Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer and Sales

Officer, Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors., Writ Petition No. 2334

of 2013, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by an order

dated 15.03.2017, recorded as follows:

“3. Mr. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioner

replied that he does not want to answer any questions of
the Court as for the petitioner as “dominus litis” he
should be heard. We had not prevented Mr. Nedumpara
from arguing but wanted him to answer the basic
issue as urged on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. At
this stage, the manner in which Mr. Nedumpara
conducted himself and behaved before the Court to say
the least was most abusive, contemptuous, lowering
the dignity of the Court, as also unbecoming of an
advocate and officer of the Court. This conduct of Mr.
Nedumpara, in our opinion, amounts to contempt in the
face of the Court. Not only that but his demeanour as an
officer of the Court was also highly objectionable. Mr.
Nedumpara not only created a scene in the Court but

16
also made abuses at the learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In fact, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pointed out that
on every occasion Mr. Nedumpara was behaving and
conducting himself in this manner.
4. What happened thereafter is further shocking. When
the hearing was in progress and the learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was pointing out to us the
details of the earlier decisions and the similar
proceedings, Mr. Nedumpara walked out of the arguing
seat and went behind and sat in the last row showing
utter disregard and indifference to the sanctity of the
court proceedings. Thereafter, when learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was addressing this Court, Mr.
Nedumpara came forward and interrupted the learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was again
abusive towards the Court, and vehemently insisted that
he be heard and he need not answer any query of the
Court. When we pointed out that our queries on the basic
issues were required to be answered so that further
hearing can be proceeded, Mr. Nedumpara walked out of
the Court and then did not return.
5. We find that what happened in the Court today is not
only most unfortunate but highly objectionable affecting
the solemnity and sanctity of the judicial proceedings.
The conduct of Mr. Nedumpara has seriously affected
not only the dignity of the Court but also the interest of
administration of justice. We may observe that the
solemn function of the Court is to dispense justice
according to law and, therefore, it is well settled that the
proceedings inside the Court are always expected to be
held in a dignified and an orderly manner. The counsel of
the Court is expected to be a responsible officer of the
Court and if such contemptuous behavior on the part of
Mr. Nedumpara is not seriously dealt with, the same
would erode the dignity of the Court and corrode the
majesty of the Court impairing confidence of the public in
the efficacy of the institution of the Court. This conduct of
Mr. Nedumpara, in our opinion, amounts to a gross

17
 contempt of the Court and, therefore, it is necessary that
an action as per the provisions of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971 is initiated.
6. We, accordingly, issue notice to Mr. Mathew
Nedumpara, Advocate under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India and section 14 of the Contempt of
Court Act, returnable after two weeks. Mr. Nedumpara is
directed to show cause as to why action should not be
taken against him under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India and under the Contempt of Court Act on his
conduct and behavior as noted by us above in detail.”

7. Shri Nedumpara features in yet another order passed by a

learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 05.03.2018 in

Anand Agarwal and Anr. v. Vilas Chandrakant Gaonkar and Ors.,

Notice of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 in Commercial Suit No. 614 of

2017. The order states as follows:

“1. At this point of time, the Judiciary is mired in

challenges of a very grave nature, perhaps like never
before. It is being observed that there is, amongst some
litigants and their Advocates, virtually no fear or
hesitation in making false statements and
misrepresentations before the Court, which should under
any and all circumstances be dealt with the iron hand of
the judiciary with zero tolerance for such blatantly
unethical and mala-fide behaviour.
2. The dignity and respect of the Court along with its
prescribed procedures is being unabashedly violated by
certain litigants who are using foul and unfair means to
demean and denounce the august Judiciary by making
frivolous and baseless allegations against the Judges,
and/or their opponents and their Advocates, with a view
to rescind and back-track on solemn undertakings and

18
statements earlier made in Court. This malicious modus
operandi of certain dishonest litigants is absolutely
unacceptable, as it seeks to subvert the very foundations
of justice that the Judiciary is committed to uphold. With
no merit in their case, and in a bid to avert an
unfavourable order being passed against them, such
dishonest litigants collude with their Advocates to use
underhanded means to ensure favourable orders and
their consequent success in litigation instituted or
defended by them.
3. Certain Advocates sadly seem to have forgotten the
code of ethics that enjoins upon all Advocates, that they
are Officers of the Court first and Advocates of their
clients only thereafter. It is anguishing to note that such
Advocates facilitate the unethical misadventures of their
clients, often encouraging their clients’ dishonest
practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and
unfortunately bringing the entire judicial system to
disrepute. It has become a vicious and despicable cycle
wherein dishonest litigants with malafide intentions seek
out unethical Advocates, who for hefty fee and the lure of
attracting similar new and unscrupulous clients,
conveniently choose to disregard and/or forget all ethics
and the code of conduct enjoined upon this august
profession. It is with a heavy heart, that Courts at times
note that clients have no hesitation in replacing good and
honest Advocates, with unscrupulous ones, who go to
any dishonest lengths, merely to secure favourable
orders for their clients.
4. The present case and the conduct of the Defendant
No. 1 / Applicant strongly affirms the aforesaid
observations. The Defendant No.1 Shri Vilas
Chandrakant Gaokar had throughout the hearing of his
case, remained present and appeared before the Court
with his Counsel as well as the Advocate on record. He
took the assistance of this Court in resolving his issues
pertaining to the Suit, gave undertakings in pursuance of
it, obtained consent orders and also acted in consonance
with the same. However, Defendant No.1 breached one

19
of the undertaking given by him and being fully aware of
the consequences thereof, he craftily and quickly
changed his Advocates (who had already been
previously changed) and briefed Counsel Mr. Mathew
Nedumpara, who in turn advised him to file this Notice of
Motion. In this Notice of Motion, he has stated that all the
previous orders passed by this Court are null and void
for reasons which are utterly false and dishonest to the
knowledge of his client Shri Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar.
5. This malicious and mala-fide Notice of Motion sets
out/alleges totally baseless and contemptible allegations
against this Court, which are completely unacceptable
and are a mere shenanigan to circumvent the action of
contempt of Court. This reprehensible attempt at
intimidating and manipulating this Court into not taking
any action under the Law of Contempt calls for censure
in the strongest terms. In an attempt to cover up the
mala-fide intent, which is crystal clear and amply evident,
the litigant Shri Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar
dishonestly/falsely reiterates in the Application that he
holds the Court in the highest esteem and respects its
integrity. It will not be out of place to mention here that in
an earlier matter before me, in which Mr. Mathew
Nedumpurra appeared for one of the parties, he, after
repeatedly reiterating that he holds the Court in the
highest esteem and respects its integrity, had proceeded
to pray that I recuse myself from all the matters in which
he appears. That Application was, however, rejected by a
detailed Judgment dated 23rd December, 2014, reported
in 2015 (2) Bom. C.R. 247.
6. Therefore, such unethical and unacceptable behaviour
needs to be met with the iron hand of the Court. The
Courts must tackle all such unethical conduct fearlessly
by taking stern action against litigants, and if need be
their unethical Advocates as well. A failure to do so, will
result in seriously jeopardising the Judiciary and will
erode the Rule of Law, which is absolutely integral to the
justice system in the country. The Courts must act swiftly
and firmly, without getting intimidated by false and

20
frivolous charges, and utterly baseless, malicious and
dishonest allegations that are levelled against the
Judges.”
xxx xxx xxx
“18. …… Again, the Defendant No.1 being aware that he
has made false and incorrect statements in the Affidavit
in support of his above Notice of Motion and his earlier
Advocates will not support his dishonest stand, has
changed his Advocates and dishonestly contended,
through Mr. Mathew Nedumpara, that it was at the
instance of the Plaintiffs that this Court recorded that by
consent the matter be treated as part-heard, and that he
had not given his consent. Though it is true that my
regular assignment from June, 2017 did not pertain to
commercial matters, a statement showing the disposal of
the 30 matters finally disposed of and the balance
matters which were heard and treated as part-heard by
me, by consent of the parties was prepared by the
Section Officer, Statistics Department which was
subsequently handed over to the Registrar, Judicial-I,
who forwarded the same to the Learned Chief Justice. In
the said statement forwarded to the Learned Chief
Justice, even the dates fixed by me for hearing of the
matters treated as part-heard, including the dates fixed in
the above matter after reopening of the Court on 5 th
June, 2017, are also mentioned. After the Court
reopened, Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, along with their
Advocates, appeared before me on 12 different dates of
hearing and several orders were passed by me in the
matters without any party or the Advocates representing
them making any grievance. As stated earlier, it is only
when the Defendant No. 1 wanted to wriggle out of his
undertakings that he discharged his earlier Advocates
who were aware of the true and correct facts in the
matter and instead briefed Mrs. Rohini Amin and Mr.
Mathew Nedumpara to make the above Application, by
suppressing facts, and on grounds which are false and
dishonest to his knowledge.

21
19. After the Order dated 26th April, 2017, was served on
Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, the manner in which the matter
has progressed is set out in detail by the Plaintiffs in their
Affidavit-in-Reply and in their submissions at the hearing
of this Notice of Motion. The same is referred to
hereinafter. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No. 1
has in his Rejoinder reiterated his allegations and made
a general denial, but has not specifically dealt with the
facts set out in the Affidavit in Reply. Even during his
arguments Mr. Nedumpara has not submitted that what
is stated by the Plaintiffs in the Affidavit in Reply is
incorrect.”
xxx xxx xxx
“49. As set out hereinabove, Defendant No. 1 was
conscious of the fact that all the allegations made by him
are false and incorrect. He was well aware that his
earlier Advocate will not be a party to his dishonest
design of making allegations against the Court only
because he was wanting to wriggle out of his
undertakings recorded in the Order dated 12 th May, 2017.
He therefore, changed his Advocate and briefed Mr.
Mathew Nedumpara to appear on his behalf in the above
Notice of Motion, making false and scandalous
allegations against this Court.
50. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated
hereinabove, the case laws relied upon by Mr.
Nedumpara does not assist him in any way. As held in
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court, set out hereinabove, the undertakings given by
Defendant No. 1 are binding on him and he is estopped
from going back on the same.
51. In view thereof, the following Order is passed:
(i) The above Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(ii) The Defendant No. 1 is directed to pay exemplary
costs of Rs.10 Lacs to the Plaintiffs within a period of
two weeks from today.”

22
8. The result of this order was that Shri Nedumpara felt

emboldened enough to file a writ petition, being Writ Petition (L) No.

1180 of 2018, in his own name against the Single Judge of the

Bombay High Court who passed this order, the said Single Judge

being arrayed as the sole respondent in the said petition. The prayers

in the said petition are set out in paragraph 2 of the order dated

26.07.2018. The petition was dismissed holding that it was not

maintainable. Paragraph 2 of the said petition reads as follows:

“2. The learned Judge (respondent herein) who has

taken up the said Notice of Motion, vide Judgment
pronounced on 05/03/2018 rejected the Motion moved
by said Vilas Gaokar by imposing exemplary costs of Rs.
10,00,000/- on the said Vilas Gaokar. However, while
rejecting the Notice of Motion, the learned Judge made
certain observations about the petitioner which according
to the petitioner are prejudicial. In the circumstances, the
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
a. To declare that the citizen whose
fundamental rights are infringed by a judicial
order is entitled to all legal remedies, common
law, equitable and declaratory, compensation
and damages, so too, even criminal action like
such infringement at the hands of legislature,
executive and fellow citizens, and to assume
otherwise will render part III of the Constitution
nugatory.
b. In the event of prayer (a) above being
granted in favour of the Petitioner, he is entitled
to initiate civil and even criminal proceedings
against Respondent no. 1 (though the

23
 Petitioner intends to institute no criminal
proceedings) in as much as the observations of
Justice Kathawalla, one rendered behind his
back is exfacie false and defamatory, even
assuming that the said observations were
made without any ulterior or malicious
intentions.
c. To declare that no distinction can be made
between subordinate judiciary and superior
judiciary in so far as the prohibition contained in
Article 13 (2) of the Constitution is concerned
and that the superior judiciary also falls within
the ambit of “State” under Article 12 just like the
subordinate judiciary.
d. To grant compensation of Re. 1/- as
damages, though the damage suffered by the
Petitioner by virtue of the Order at Exhibit A,
dated 05.03.2018 at the hands of Justice
Kathawalla is irreparable and cannot be
adequately compensated in terms of money.
e. Without prejudice to the reliefs (a) to (d)
above and in furtherance thereof relegate the
Petitioner to the civil court for the enforcement
of the remedies vested in him, his fundamental
rights being violated by virtue of Ex P1 at the
hands of Justice Kathawalla, Respondent no. 1
above.
f. Any other order as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.”

It is clear that prayers (b), (d), and (e) are clearly contemptuous, and

an attempt to bring the administration of justice by a premier High

Court of this country to a grinding halt. If lawyers can be bold enough

to file writ petitions against judges of a High Court on observations

24
judicially made by a Judge of the High Court, the very independence of

the judiciary itself comes under threat. Given the course of behaviour

of Shri Nedumpara before Tribunals, the Bombay High Court, and this

Court, it is clear that the said advocate has embarked on a course of

conduct which is calculated to defeat the administration of justice in

this country.

9. When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges’

hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty of this Court as well

as the administration of justice both demand that contemptuous

behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly. An early judgment of this

Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954

SCR 454 proceeded cautiously, but made it clear that where a judge is

personally attacked, it would be proper for the judge to deal with the

matter himself, in cases of contempt in the face of the Court. This

Court stated the law thus:

“We wish however to add that though we have no power

to order a transfer in an original petition of this kind we
consider it desirable on general principles of justice that
a judge who has been personally attacked should not as
far as possible hear a contempt matter which, to that
extent, concerns him personally. It is otherwise when the
attack is not directed against him personally. We do not
lay down any general rule because there may be cases
where that is impossible, as for example in a court where

25
 there is only one judge or two and both are attacked.
Other cases may also arise where it is more convenient
and proper for the Judge to deal with the matter himself,
as for example in a contempt in facie curiae. All we can
say is that this must be left to the good sense of the
judges themselves who, we are confident, will comfort
themselves with that dispassionate dignity and decorum
which befits their high office and will bear in mind the oft
quoted maxim that justice must not only be done but
must be seen to be done by all concerned and most
particularly by an accused person who should always be
given, as far as that is humanly possible, a feeling of
confidence that he will receive a fair, just and impartial
trial by Judges who have no personal interest or concern
in his case.”
(at pp. 464-465)
(emphasis supplied)

10. In Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 4 SCC 578,

two learned Judges differed on whether contempt in the face of the

Court can be dealt with summarily, without any need of issuing notice

to the contemnors, and whether punishment can be inflicted upon

them there and then. Pasayat, J. held that this is, indeed, the duty of

the Court. Ganguly, J. differed. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in

Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 337, settled the

law, making it clear that Pasayat, J.’s view was the correct view in law.

This Court held:

“28. As far as the suo motu proceedings for contempt are

concerned, we are of the view that Arijit Pasayat, J. was
well within his jurisdiction in passing a summary order,

26
having regard to the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of
the Constitution of India. Although, Section 14 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, lays down the procedure
to be followed in cases of criminal contempt in the face
of the court, it does not preclude the court from taking
recourse to summary proceedings when a deliberate and
wilful contumacious incident takes place in front of their
eyes and the public at large, including Senior Law
Officers, such as the Attorney General for India who was
then the Solicitor General of India.
29. While, as pointed out by Ganguly, J., it is a statutory
requirement and a salutary principle that a person should
not be condemned unheard, particularly in a case
relating to contempt of court involving a summary
procedure, and should be given an opportunity of
showing cause against the action proposed to be taken
against him/her, there are exceptional circumstances in
which such a procedure may be discarded as being
redundant.
30. The incident which took place in the courtroom
presided over by Pasayat, J. was within the confines of
the courtroom and was witnessed by a large number of
people and the throwing of the footwear was also
admitted by Dr. Sarita Parikh, who without expressing
any regret for her conduct stood by what she had done
and was supported by the other contemnors. In the light
of such admission, the summary procedure followed by
Pasayat, J. cannot be faulted.”
xxx xxx xxx
“35. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no doubt
contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to
the contemnors to answer the charges in the notice to
satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, where
an incident of the instant nature takes place within the
presence and sight of the learned Judges, the same
amounts to contempt in the face of the Court and is
required to be dealt with at the time of the incident itself.
This is necessary for the dignity and majesty of the

27
 courts to be maintained. When an object, such as a
footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a court
proceeding, the object is not to merely scandalise or
humiliate the Judge, but to scandalise the institution itself
and thereby lower its dignity in the eyes of the public.”

11. Leila David (6) (supra) has been followed in Ram Niranjan Roy

v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 12 SCC 11 thus:

“16. Thus, when contempt is committed in the face of the

High Court or the Supreme Court to scandalise or
humiliate the Judge, instant action may be necessary. If
the courts do not deal with such contempt with strong
hand, that may result in scandalising the institution
thereby lowering its dignity in the eyes of the public. The
courts exist for the people. The courts cherish the faith
reposed in them by people. To prevent erosion of that
faith, contempt committed in the face of the court need a
strict treatment. The appellant, as observed by the High
Court was not remorseful. He did not file any affidavit
tendering apology nor did he orally tell the High Court
that he was remorseful and he wanted to tender apology.
Even in this Court he has not tendered apology.
Therefore, since the contempt was gross and it was
committed in the face of the High Court, the learned
Judges had to take immediate action to maintain honour
and dignity of the High Court. There was no question of
giving the appellant any opportunity to make his defence.
This submission of the appellant must, therefore, be
rejected.”

12. In R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, a three-

Judge Bench of this Court examined the law and stated that a direction

prohibiting the advocate from appearing in a Court for a specified

period was a punishment that could be imposed in the contempt

28
jurisdiction. After examining the judgments on the point, this Court

held:

“238. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. [(1998) 4 SCC 409]

the direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in
court for a specified period was viewed as a total and
complete denial of his right to practise law and the bar
was considered as a punishment inflicted on him.
[Though in para 80 of Supreme Court Bar Assn. case
[(1998) 4 SCC 409], as seen earlier (in para 230 herein),
there is an observation that in a given case it might be
possible for this Court or the High Court, to prevent the
contemnor advocate to appear before it till he purges
himself of the contempt.] In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal
[(2003) 2 SCC 45] it was seen not as punishment for
professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to
regulate the court’s proceedings and to maintain the
dignity and orderly functioning of the courts. We may
respectfully add that in a given case a direction
disallowing an advocate who is convicted of criminal
contempt from appearing in court may not only be a
measure to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning
of the courts but may become necessary for the self-
protection of the court and for preservation of the purity
of court proceedings. Let us, for example, take the case
where an advocate is shown to have accepted money in
the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him;
or where an advocate is found tampering with the court’s
record; or where an advocate is found actively taking
part in faking court orders (fake bail orders are not
unknown in several High Courts!); or where an advocate
has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse
judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get
a case transferred from an “inconvenient” court; or where
an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending
unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions
against judicial officers and judges to the superior courts.
Unfortunately, these examples are not from imagination.

29
 These things are happening more frequently than we
care to acknowledge.
239. We may also add that these illustrations are not
exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a
malefactor’s conduct and actions may pose a real and
imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings,
cardinal to any court’s functioning, apart from constituting
a substantive offence and contempt of court and
professional misconduct. In such a situation the court
does not only have the right but it also has the obligation
cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its
proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that
end bar the malefactor from appearing before the courts
for an appropriate period of time.
240. It is already explained in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal
[(2003) 2 SCC 45] that a direction of this kind by the
Court cannot be equated with punishment for
professional misconduct. Further, the prohibition against
appearance in courts does not affect the right of the
lawyer concerned to carry on his legal practice in other
ways as indicated in the decision. We respectfully submit
that the decision in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of
India [(2003) 2 SCC 45] places the issue in correct
perspective and must be followed to answer the question
at issue before us.”
(emphasis supplied)

13. Conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is severe.

Though we could have punished Shri Nedumpara by this order itself, in

the interest of justice, we issue notice to Shri Nedumpara as to the

punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the

face of the Court. Notice returnable within two weeks from today.

30
14. This judgment is to be circulated to the Chief Justice of every

High Court in this country, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar

Council of Kerala, through the Secretary General, within a period of

four weeks from today.

15. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ Petition, in

essence, seeks a second review of our judgment reported in Indira

Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors.,

(2017) 9 SCC 766. Even otherwise, it is settled law that an Article 32

petition does not lie against the judgment of this Court. We are also of

the view that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a provision

which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the designation of

Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty or as a matter of

right.

16. For these reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

…………….......................... J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

............................................ J.
(VINEET SARAN)
New Delhi;
March 12, 2019.

31
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.5 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 191/2019
NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY
AND REFORMS & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 12-03-2019 This petition was called on for pronouncement

of order today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR
For Respondent(s)

*****

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman pronounced the reportable

order of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Vineet Saran.

The Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition, came to the

following conclusion:

“13. Conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is

severe. Though we could have punished Shri Nedumpara by this

order itself, in the interest of justice, we issue notice to

Shri Nedumpara as to the punishment to be imposed upon him

32
 for committing contempt in the face of the Court. Notice

returnable within two weeks from today.

14. This judgment is to be circulated to the Chief Justice

of every High Court in this country, the Bar Council of

India, and the Bar Council of Kerala, through the Secretary

General, within a period of four weeks from today.

15. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ

Petition, in essence, seeks a second review of our judgment

reported in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through

Secretary General and Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 766. Even otherwise,

it is settled law that an Article 32 petition does not lie

against the judgment of this Court. We are also of the view

that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a provision

which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the

designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of

bounty or as a matter of right.”

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(R. NATARAJAN) (RENU DIWAN)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)

33