Lawyer charged with contempt

Ahmedabad: A lawyer is facing contempt of court for issuing legal notices to more than 60 judges in connection with cases that did not go in his favour. Those on the receiving end were magistrates, sessions judges and even Gujarat high court judges, including three chief justices.
Advocate Devesh Bhatt has been issuing legal notices to judicial officers for quite some time in cases wherein court ruling is not in his clients’ favour. He has also filed damage suit against certain judicial officers demanding amount up to Rs 1 crore. The notices coupled with complaints to the President of India to initiate prosecution against the judges came to be perceived as pressure tactic.
Many judicial officers of lower judiciary have complaint in this regard against advocate Bhatt to the high court in form of reference and sought his persecution for committing contempt of the court by creating pressure over judicial officers to obtain orders in his favour.
On the basis of one of such complaints by a chief metropolitan magistrate, the high court initiated contempt proceedings against advocate Bhatt in 2008, but the case did not move further for more than two years and the lawyer did not appear before the division bench. He filed a reply to court’s notice though. The court also issued notice to advocate Bhatt’s client R H Patel after a public prosecutor suggested that the lawyer might have resorted to this practice on instruction from his client.
Ultimately, a division bench of Justice D H Waghela and Justice K A Puj issued bailable warrant against the lawyer to bring him to the courtroom. The court appointed advocate Asim Pandya as an amicus curiae.
Indicating to many such complaints from judicial officers, the amicus curiae and additional advocate general Tushar Mehta submitted that there were clear cases of contempt and the lawyer and some of his clients were required to be prosecuted.
They submitted that each of alleged contempt was required to be separated and a separate motion for further proceedings is required to be prepared.
The court has asked advocate to categorise the cases and assist the court in preparing separate motions. Next hearing of this case is scheduled on April 18, when many such cases of contempt could be filed against the advocate.