Synopsis
On March 10, the Calcutta High Court issued a 'Rule of Contempt' against 21 advocates, including a public prosecutor, for allegedly harassing a district court judge during a POCSO case hearing. The incident has raised significant concerns within legal circles regarding the absence of key legal representatives in such critical cases.Key Takeaways
- Rule of Contempt issued against 21 advocates.
- Harassment of judge occurred during a POCSO case.
- Public prosecutor's absence deemed unacceptable.
- Video evidence presented during the hearing.
- Disciplinary proceedings are forthcoming.
Kolkata, March 10 (NationPress) A division bench of the Calcutta High Court, on Monday, issued a “Rule of Contempt” against 21 advocates, including a public prosecutor, for allegedly harassing an additional judge of a district court in Kolkata.
Recently, there was a hearing at the bench of the additional judge of Basirhat District Court in North 24 Parganas on a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act-related case.
Counsels involved in the case, including the public prosecutor, failed to attend the hearing. Subsequently, the additional district judge issued a note of caution, after which he was reportedly harassed by a group of advocates. The additional district judge subsequently brought the issue to the attention of the Calcutta High Court, which heard the matter at the division bench led by Justice Debangshu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi.
Video recordings related to the incident were presented at the Calcutta High Court, where the judges observed that the absence of a public prosecutor during a POCSO-related hearing was unacceptable, as it delayed the process of delivering justice to the minor victim.
Currently, a “Rule of Contempt” has been issued against these advocates. The case will be revisited in the court soon, where disciplinary actions will be determined and initiated against the accused advocates based on the hearing's outcomes.
The Calcutta High Court has requested details regarding the accused advocates from the district court's bar association. Legal experts note that such a situation, where a Rule of Contempt was issued against multiple advocates simultaneously, is unprecedented in recent times.
Furthermore, legal circles have expressed concern over the public prosecutor's absence in a POCSO case, especially given the state government's commitment to swift convictions and sentencing in such matters.
