Allahabad High Court Sentences Advocate to Jail for Calling Judges "Goondas"

The Allahabad High Court has sentenced advocate Asok Pandey to six months of simple imprisonment and fined him ₹2,000 for criminal contempt of court. This decision comes after Pandey repeatedly used abusive language against judges, including calling them "goondas," during open court proceedings in 2021.

Key Points:

Punishment: Pandey faces six months in jail and a ₹2,000 fine, with an additional month of imprisonment if the fine is not paid.
Potential Disbarment: The court has asked Advocate Pandey to explain why he should not be barred from practicing law for three years. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for May 1, 2025.
History of Misconduct: Pandey has a long record of contempt cases spanning from 2003 to 2017, including a previous two-year ban from entering the High Court.

Incident Details:

On August 18, 2021, Pandey appeared in court dressed inappropriately, wearing an unbuttoned shirt, and refused to comply with the court's request to dress decently. He disrupted proceedings, shouted at judges, and called them "goondas" in front of other lawyers. Despite multiple opportunities to apologize, Pandey showed no remorse and ignored court notices.

Court's Observations:

The bench, comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Brij Raj Singh, stated that Pandey's actions were deliberate attempts to undermine judicial authority. They highlighted his long-standing defiance and disregard for penalties.

Next Steps:

Pandey has been given four weeks to surrender and begin serving his sentence. The court will decide on his potential three-year practice ban during the May 1 hearing.

Significance:

This case emphasizes the judiciary's zero tolerance for contempt, particularly when advocates, who are officers of the court, disrespect its dignity. Legal experts believe the verdict sends a strong message against courtroom misconduct. Further updates are expected after the May 1 hearing.

Comments

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...

The Legal Catalyst

Search This Blog