Apology by a contemnor

While deciding CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 of 2006 [Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Versus State of U.P.] the honourable Supreme Court of India has observed that, an apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at the earliest since a belated apology hardly shows the “contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt”. However, even if the apology is not belated but the court finds it to be without real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was merely tendered as a weapon of defense, the Court may refuse to accept it. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.


The honourable Supreme Court was dealing with a matter of contemptuous behavior by an Advocate with the Judicial Officer, before whom, the Advocate had allegedly presented a wrong person impersonating him as the accused causing surrender. When there was dispute regarding the genuineness of the identity of the surrendering person, the advocate misbehaved and used abusive language.

The learned Presiding Officer made a reference to the honourable High Court as well as Uttar Pradesh Bar Council.

Ironically, the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, which is supposed to lay high standards of practice, dismissed the compliant.

However, the Honourable High Court convicted the advocate by refusing to accept the apology tendered by the advocate contemnor.

The honourable Supreme Court considered the factual accepts and ruled that, the apology was tendered only to avoid punishment.



VAKILSAHEB