The question (10 marks)
At a public meeting outside the district court, Advocate P, President of the District Bar Association, says that the District Judge 'has two rates for bail, one for the rich and one for the poor'. The Association then resolves (i) that it has no confidence in the District Judge and (ii) that its members will abstain from court work for three days. Advocate Q, a member, files a petition in the High Court seeking to punish P for contempt, without the Advocate-General's consent, stating in the petition that consent 'will be presumed if not refused within a week'. Advise on: (a) whether P's speech is contempt and whether section 5 protects it; (b) the legality of the resolution and the abstention; (c) what the Association should have done with its grievance; and (d) whether Q's petition is maintainable. (10 marks)
Original problem written for this pack; law from module 4, Part Two, and the Harish Uppal and C. Ravichandran Iyer chapters, with sections checked against the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 text.
Plan your answer on paper before you look at the authorities — issue first, then the rule, then apply it to these facts.
It tests Unit 4 · Contempt, Bar–Bench relations and accountancy for lawyers of Practical Training – I: Professional Ethics and Professional Accounting System.
Authorities you will need
- Bhuramal Swami v Raghuveer Singh
- Brahma Prakash Sharma v State of U.P.
- C. Ravichandran Iyer v Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee
- Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India
- Bal Thackrey v Harish Pimpalkhute
How an answer is marked
A full-marks answer names the issue in one line, states the rule with its section, cites the authority, applies it to these facts and concludes — in that order. The app's model answer for this question is written in exactly that shape, with a checklist to mark your own attempt against.