Bar vs Bench - Contempt against ITAT Lawyer discharged
IT has all the elements of a revolting drama.
The ITAT Bar Association addressed a letter to the President that the Bar has decided not to appear before an Accountant Member. This letter was later presented before a Bench in which the Accountant Member was a judge. Another Association of the Bar supported the Accountant Member, but made some complaints against the judicial Member, especially on his judicial indiscipline.
The Judicial Member filed a contempt petition against the Advocate who made the second complaint which was read out in the open court while arguing an adjournment application. The Judicial Member initiated contempt proceedings and sent the file to the Accountant Member for his approval. But he did not concur with the proposal. In the absence of unanimity in the Bench, the Judicial Member made the contempt application individually to the High Court.
While going through the case, the High Court noticed some startling facts:
One Bar Association passes a resolution against the conduct of one member of ITAT whereas members of another Bar Association condemn the same and lodge the complaint against the other member of the ITAT.
Both the members of the Tribunal did not concur in their views on various occasions. The complainant who is the Judicial Member of the ITAT has gone even to the extent of saying in his order dated 06.09.2012 that the Tribunal will not hear any appeal unless and until Bar Association passes the resolution condemning the particular act of an Advocate (i.e. moving the representation dated 28.08.2012 by the opposite party No.1). The complainant has even observed in the said order that Bar Association should pass the resolution in a particular manner giving assurance that in case of decision in any case, no such type of representation or complaint will be made to the President of ITAT and further that the protection be given from President of the ITAT with the assurance that such type of complaint/representation would not be entertained and erring Advocate will be dealt with severely. The said view expressed by the complainant- who is Judicial Member of the ITAT, though was not agreed to by the other member, namely, Accountant Member.
The High Court found such observations, as the one made by the complainant in a judicial order, unacceptable.
The High Court observed that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal in nature and hence, no action under the Act can be taken unless a clear case of criminal contempt is made out.
The High Court did not agree with the complainant, the senior Member of the ITAT that opposite parties have committed criminal contempt so as to attract punishment therefor under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly the High Court discharged the contempt notices.
Before parting, the High Court quoted the Supreme Court - "It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judiciary. If lawyers fail in their duty, the faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent. It is said that lawyers are the custodians of civilization. Lawyers have to discharge their duty with dignity, decorum and discipline".
Please see
It is unfortunate that such things are happening in the premier tax tribunal!
I am unable to resist the temptation to carry here excerpts from earlier DDT 2261 - Bar vs Bench:
"All of us, i.e. judicial officers, departmental representatives and assessee's representatives, are like a large joint family, in pursuit of a common goal of the cause of justice, and all of us have an equal stake in well-being of this institution, and, therefore, whatever be the provocation, all of us should desist from invoking these extreme measures and in washing dirty linen in full public gaze ." -Pramod Kumar, Member (A) of ITAT in 2013-TIOL-570-ITAT-LKW .
Generally, our Courts and Tribunals are exemplary models of good behaviour, though sometimes to the extent of ridiculous courtesy. "We are much obliged " when the Bench most unreasonably asks us to make a huge pre-deposit of not only duty outrageously demanded by the Commissioner, but also interest on the duty (not) payable and penalty, so illegally imposed. All the judges are honourable and "my lords"; all the lawyers are learned - so are all the Commissioners who pass those patently illegal orders. All our arguments are " humble submissions " and what we ask the bench is not a demand of what is ours by right, but a "humble prayer". And we are all in black robes, perhaps symbolising the inherent tragedy couched in all these artificial courtesies.
Even in such a sea of tranquillity (which as you know does not exist on Earth), sometimes fissures are bound to develop.
In recent times, this has been quite visible in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Some Bar Associations have boycotted some Members and sent complaints against Members to the President. The ITAT has no regular President for the last more than three years and many in Income Tax Circles feel that all the troubles are because there is no President, but in some other Tribunals, they feel that all the troubles are because of the president and they recall the happier times when there was no President.
Advocacy - Decay: Mr. Pramod Kumar also observed, "The profession of law and accountancy, which had earned so much of well deserved respect and dignity for their outstanding contribution to the larger interests and good causes, cannot always be said to be absolutely beyond general decay in society. There are bar associations which have fought legal battles to protect independence of our institution and, in the process, have helped us earn, as indeed everyone associated with this Tribunal, the respect and credibility. Many of the learned representatives appearing before us, which included, for long decades, legendry and great lawyers like late Shri N A Palkhivala, have helped us do our job in a more meaningful and satisfying manner, and have helped this institution emerge as an institution of distinction and eminence."
Please also see:
1. ITAT Bar Association boycotts Member - DDT 2089 - 22.04.2013
2. ITAT Bar Association withdraws Boycott of Member - DDT 2100 - 08.05.2013
3. Bar vs Bench - DDT 2261 - 30.12.2013