K. L. SHARMA, J. These proceedings have been initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in the following facts and circumstances. 2. The bail application No. 740 of 1995 and bail application No. 3969 of 1995 had been heard and orders rejecting the same, were dictated in the open Court but Mr. D. N. Wali counsel appearing for the applicants subsequently made a request that ho desired to be heard further and the order be not signed. He was granted time for further arguments and the typed order was not signed. The bail applications were fixed for 2-5-1995 for further arguments. Mr. Omkar Singh opposite party No. 1 described himself as pairokar of the applicants Veerpal and others in Bail application No. 740 of 1995. Mr. D. N. Wali, Advocate and Counsel filed on 2- 5-1995 an affidavit sworn by Omkar Singh instead of advancing further arguments in the bail applications aforesaid. Mr. D. N. Wali asked the Court to read the supplementary affidavit of Omkar Singh. The Court then perused the affidavit and found that the deponent Omkar Singh had made false, derogatory, disparaging and contemptuous remarks against the presiding Judge of the Bench sitting in Court No. 43 of the High Court at Allahabad, with the intention to lower down the prestige of the Court and hamper the administration of Justice. The Court then enquired of Mr. D. N Wali that the allegations against the Judge have been made in the affidavit and he filed such an affidavit. Mr. D. N. Wali made his face oblique and affirmatively said yes. Thereupon the Court was satisfied that opposite parties aforesaid have committed gross contempt of this Court and have rendered themselves liable to punishment under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Then, the notices were issued to the opposite parties to show cause by personal appearance as to why they should not be punished for committing the contempt of this Court. 3. In the show cause affidavit, the opposite party No. 1 Omkar Singh affirmed the affidavit containing contemptuous remarks against the Judge. He also raised other pleas of jurisdiction and procedure. The Court was also orally informed that an appeal had been filed against the order of show cause notice but it had not been admitted. 4. Opposite party No. 2 Mr. He also raised other pleas of jurisdiction and procedure. The Court was also orally informed that an appeal had been filed against the order of show cause notice but it had not been admitted. 4. Opposite party No. 2 Mr. D. N. Wali, Advocate had also filed his affidavit in reply to the show cause notice and application asking for four weeks time to obtain and file certified copy of the order of the Honble Supreme Court in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. However, in the affidavit dated 13-7- 1995 he expressed regret for carelessness in filing the affidavit of Omkar Singh. 5. But, on the date of hearing, the opposite party No. 1 Omkar Singh ultimately did not press his objections and got his application rejected as not pressed. He also submitted his unqualified apology for his admitted guilt in making adverse remarks and objectionable allegations against the Judge and prayed for being excused. Accordingly, t he objections initially raised by him, were dismissed. 6. Opposite party No. 2, Mr. D. N. Wali Advocate also filed an application with affidavit tendering unconditional and unqualified apology realizing his fault in the proceedings. 7. The opposite parties have not denied the making of the objectionable, false, derogatory and contemptuous remarks made in paras 4,5,15,16,17,23,25,26,28 and 29 of the affidavit dated 2nd May, 1995 sworn by Omkar Singh and filed by Mr. D. N. Wali. Therefore I do not consider necessary to reproduce the same in the body of this judgment. In view of the acceptance of the guilt and the fault by opposite parties no adjudication of any fact is called for. The finding that the opposite parties are guilty of the contempt of this Court is, therefore, recorded on their admission. 8. The Court is however called upon to consider the apologies tendered in the open Court by the opposite parties and pass appropriate orders. These apologies were of course read over by them in the Court but it would be necessary to reproduce the same in this judgment with a view to create salutary effect not only on them but also on the like minded persons for their behaviours and actions in a Court of law. 9. The apology of opposite party No. 1 Omkar Singh who swore the affidavit dated 2. 9. The apology of opposite party No. 1 Omkar Singh who swore the affidavit dated 2. 5 1995 reads as follows: Contempt petition No. 754/95 SEWA MEIn UCHCHA NYAYALAYA ALLAHABAd SAVINAY NIVEDAN HAI KI PRARTHI NE JO SHAPATH PATRA DAKHIL KIYA THA USMEIN MANEIYA NYAYALAYA KE PRATI JO ANUCHIT BAATE LIKHWAI Till USKE LIYE PRARTHI KO BEHAD DUKH VA PASHCHATAP HAI. PRARTHI SE BHARI BHOOL HUT HAI USKE LIYE PRARTHI SHARMINDA HAI VA BINA SHART APNI BHOOL SWEEKAR KARTE HUAI CHHAMA YACHNA KARTA HAI BHAVISHYA MEIN AISI GALTI NAHIN HOGI PRARTHI GARIB VYAKTI HAI MAN-NT YA NYAYALAYA KA HAMESHA AABHARIRAHEGA. Sd. /omkar Singh Omkar Singh son of Sher Singh Village - Peer Nagar Post - Datiyana Distt.- Ghaziabad. 19. 7. 1995. The apology of opposite party No. 2, Mr. D. N. Wali, Advocate reads as follows: (extract from affidavit, dated 18-7-1995) (3) "that I have fully realized my fault in the proceedings and I am genuinely and sincerely feeling sorry for the same. I honestly express my unconditional apology and regret and place myself at the mercy of this Honble Court. (4) That I am 68 years of age having put in 39 years of practice at the Bar in this Honble Court and never has any such mistake been committed by me. This mistake was due to my personal problems which at that time blurred my sense of discretion for which I am extremely sorry. I solemnly promise to be extra careful in future in my conduct and behavior in Courts and proceedings. This is being stated not by way of defence but by way of mitigating circumstances. (5) That I hold the highest respect and confidence in this Honble Court. (6) That I most respectfully pray that the Honble Court to accept my sincere and unconditional apology which is being tendered bonafide upon realization of my mistake. " 10. Before Passing the orders on these apologies, I would like to emphasize and bring to the notice of the learned Advocates the views and observations of the Apex Court made in two latest decisions involving advocates. 11. In the case of Sanjiv Datta and two Advocates reported in Judgment Today 1995 (3) S C 538, it was observed: ". . . . . . 11. In the case of Sanjiv Datta and two Advocates reported in Judgment Today 1995 (3) S C 538, it was observed: ". . . . . . We find that the statements made in the affidavit when they were so made were to the knowledge of the contemner, a malicious attempt to cast aspersions on and attribute motives to the Court. They were not made in ignorance of their consequence nor were they innocent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only on individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems, in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously and practiced it with dignity defference and devotion. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalized. No service will be too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practise the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession of the institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the Courts the unpleasant duty. " 12. In the case of Mr. V. C. Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584 at page 588, it was observed: (a) Normally, no judge takes action for in facie curiae contempt against the lawyer unless he is impelled to do so. It is not the hezt generated in the arguments but the language used, the tone and the manner in which it is expressed and the intention behind using it which determine whether it was calculated to insult, show disrespect, to overbear and overawe the Court and to threaten and obstruct the course of justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No one expects a lawyer to be subservient to the Court while presenting his case and not to put forward his arguments merely because the Court is against, him In fact, that is the moment when he is expected to put forth his best effort to persuade the Court. However, if, inspite of it, the lawyer finds that the Court is against him, he is not expected to be discourteous to the Court or to fling hot words or epithets or use disrespectful, derogatory or threatening language or exhibit temper which has the effect of overbearing the Court. The lawyer is not entitled to indulge in unbecoming conduct either by showing his temper or using unbecoming language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To resent the question asked by a Judge, to be disrespectful to him, to question his authority to ask the questions, to shoft at him, to threaten him with transfer and impeachment, to use insulting language and abuse him, to dictate the order that he should pass, to create scenes in the Court, to address him by losing temper are all Acts calculated to interfere with and obstruct the course of justice. Such Acts tend to overawe the Court and to prevent it from performing its duty to Administer Justice. Such conduct brings the authority of the Court and the Administration of Justice into disrespect and disrepute and undermines and erodes the very foundation of the judiciary by shaking the confidence of the people in the ability of the Court to deliver free and fair justice. " This Court hopes and trusts that the prestige and dignity of the Courts of Law shall be maintained without even the slightest lapse or carelessness by the learned Advocates, who shall not advise or permit their clients or their pairokars to malign the judges and shake the confidence of the people in the Judicial Institutions. The opposite parties shall sincerely conform to and follow their apologies in letter and spirits. This is also to note that from the time of reserving the judgment till the date of delivery of the judgment, no complain, of misbehaviour and/or illegal acts has been received against any of the opposite parities. 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court hereby accepts the apologies tendered by Sri Omker Singh and Sri D. N. Wali, Advocate. Though they are held guilty of the contempt of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, they are not sentenced and are hereby saved from punishment on their apologies with the hope and trust that neither of them shall ever repeat it in future. 14. Accordingly these proceedings are finally disposed of and be consigned. Proceedings disposed of. .