Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor, (1945) A.C. 264; M.Y. Shareef v. Hon’ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur, (1954) 2 SCC 444; Pushpaben v. Narandas Badiani, (1979) 2 SCC 394; Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47; Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592; Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 4 SCC 1; Murray and Company v. Ashok Kr. Newatia, (2000) 2 SCC 367; Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai, (2008) 14 SCC 561; Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain, (2012) 11 SCC 761; Priya Gupta v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (2013) 11 SCC 404; Bal Kishan Giri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 7 SCC 280; Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204; Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, (2017) 7 SCC 1; Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139.  

We may touch upon qualified apology vis-à-vis an unconditional apology. It must be understood, any apology tendered in contempt proceedings must be unconditional and unqualified. Such an apology must also demonstrate, it has been made with a bona fide intention and not just to wriggle out of a tight situation. If contemnor tenders a conditional apology and expects luck to play a role, he should be ready to face an outright rejection.  

Any future intransigence, whether by act, deed or speech, shall be viewed strictly and ensuing consequences could indeed be grave.

– Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, [Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022].

_____

They have cast certain aspersions: Counsel gave an undertaking, germane to instant controversy, without express authorization.

State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn., (1994) (2) SCC 204 highlighted, nature of this profession. Also see, Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 373. Advocates are not entitled to make concessions or give any undertaking to Court without express instructions [Bar of Indian Lawyers v. National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430]. It flows, any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority.

A few dates require immediate recall.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Smt. Lavanya C. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai, [Civil Appeal No. 13999 of 2024] decided on 05.03.2025.