Why Karnataka High Court sentenced an advocate to 1-day imprisonment

The incident dates back to 2022 when advocate Pankaj Kaushik allegedly interrupted arguments in court and insisted that his case be heard.

The Karnataka High Court on September 11 sentenced advocate Pankaj Kaushik, 51, to a day’s imprisonment till the court rises on charges of criminal contempt after he misbehaved before the civil court in Karwar district, allegedly in an inebriated condition.

A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T said in its order, “We are of the clear opinion that if conduct of this nature is not punished, sociopaths like the accused are likely to repeat such offences with impunity which would endanger the rule of law and the judicial system as a whole.”

Taking note of the conduct of the accused as well as his age and profession, the court said, “We sentence the accused/contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of 1-day (till raising of the court) with a fine of Rs 2,000. The accused/contemnor shall be taken to custody forthwith, to serve the sentence.”

The case dates back to an incident in 2022. On April 22, 2022, the principal district and sessions judge of Karwar in the Uttara Kannada district forwarded a letter written by Shrinivas Patil, additional civil judge and judicial magistrate first class-II, Karwar, which included a drunkenness certificate of Kaushik, to the high court with a request that necessary action be taken against him.

Judge Patil stated that on April 20, 2022, at 3.30 pm, when a senior counsel was addressing his arguments before him, Kaushik interrupted the arguments and insisted that his case be heard. When the court tried to intervene, Kaushik allegedly did not listen to the judge and started to yell at everyone. At that time, he was smelling of alcohol and was found to be unsteady, the judge stated. Kaushik was then taken to the Civil Hospital, Karwar, where he was tested for alcohol consumption.

The high court initiated criminal contempt in 2022. Kaushik denied the charges before the high court and claimed that he had been practising in Karwar courts for 18 years with an unblemished record, dignity, sobriety, etc. Further, he submitted that the contempt proceedings against him were deliberately initiated to harass him.

The bench in its order referred to the evidence of the witnesses recorded during the proceedings and said: “We are of the clear view that the charges levelled against the accused stand proved. He has committed aggravated contempt in the face of the court by scurrilous, scandalous and baseless statements against judicial officers as well as the judges of the court.”

Stating that the accused did not express any remorse and attempted to justify his actions, the bench said, “His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct.”