MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
Regular-article-logo Wednesday, 10 June 2026

Lawyer gets jail sentence for slight

Read more below

OUR CORRESPONDENT Published 03.07.07, 12:00 AM

Ranchi, July 3: The high court today sentenced advocate K.K. Jha Kamal to six months of simple imprisonment for showing disrespect towards the judicial system.

A five-judge bench of the high court also restrained Kamal from practising law within the jurisdiction of the high court as part of the punishment.

The court has, however, allowed him chamber practice. He can meet clients in his office, but cannot plead on their behalf before any court of law in the state.

The bench, specially constituted and headed by Chief Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, comprised Justice M.Y. Eqbal, Justice Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia and N.N. Tiwari.

The chief justice cited several Supreme Court cases where advocates were hauled up for showing disrespect to the court. “An advocate is an officer of the court and is expected to be humble and courteous,” the chief justice said.

The judges have referred the matter to the Bar Council of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against Kamal and allowed him two months to appeal before the Supreme Court.

The sentence would remain suspended during the period.

The strict decision follows a contempt proceeding initiated against the advocate and his client, Ashok Kumar Gupta, secretary of Tanzime Sufia, a registered society based in Giridih, for trying to slander a lower court judge and showing disrespect towards a former high court judge.

Kamal had allegedly misbehaved in the court of Justice Permod Kohli while arguing a case.

The larger bench of the high court, dropped contempt charges against Gupta, but pinned Kamal for his faults. Kamal has no regrets for his behaviour and defied the entire judicial system, the bench observed.

Kamal, infuriated by the high court order, said he would file an appeal against the order and go on an indefinite hunger strike from tomorrow.

He accused the court of being biased in its order and said he was not given a patient hearing and the order was discriminatory.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT