Supreme Court Shields Gauhati Bar President Amid Contempt Clash

Article by Abhishek Jat, Advocate 

The Supreme Court of India, on April 28, 2025, granted interim relief to Mr. Kamal Nayan Choudhary, the President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, by staying the contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Gauhati High Court. The contempt action arose from allegations made by the Advocate General of Assam, accusing certain lawyers, including senior advocates Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya and Pallavi Talukdar, of criminal contempt for making disparaging remarks against a sitting judge and the institution of the High Court during protests against the proposed relocation of the court to Rangmahal in North Guwahati.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, allowed the contempt proceedings against the two advocates to continue but kept the proceedings against the Bar Association President in abeyance. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mr. Choudhary, emphasized that the President was not present when the contentious remarks were made and submitted evidence to this effect, including a video statement. The Court acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting the President’s position but also the need to protect the dignity of the judiciary.

The Advocate General argued that the Bar Association President, as the representative of the association, bears responsibility for the conduct of its members and cannot dissociate himself from their actions. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Bar Association is represented by its Secretary in such matters, not the President, thereby distinguishing individual accountability from institutional representation.

The underlying controversy relates to the public dissemination of statements that allegedly scandalize the judiciary, potentially undermining public confidence in the independence and integrity of the judicial system. The Gauhati High Court had earlier issued contempt notices to the Bar Association President and other lawyers for failing to take corrective action against those who made derogatory comments about a sitting judge, particularly in the context of the court’s relocation. The remarks were described by the High Court as "derogatory and contemptuous," with the Court expressing concern over their broadcast on media platforms, which necessitated removal under the Information Technology Act.

This case underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the imperative to uphold the sanctity of judicial institutions. It also highlights the role of legal professionals in maintaining the decorum and respect due to the judiciary, as well as the procedural nuances involved in contempt proceedings, including the differentiation between personal and institutional liability.

The Supreme Court’s interim order reflects a judicious approach, allowing the High Court to proceed against the individual lawyers while protecting the Bar Association President from immediate proceedings, pending further consideration. This decision also signals the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that contempt laws are applied fairly and that the rights of all parties, including those representing collective legal bodies, are safeguarded.