A CASE ANALYSIS ON

“CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ADVOCATES”

SUBMITTED TO:

MS. SHRADDHA SHUKLA

(SIP In-Charge)

SUBMITTED BY:

SUSHALI SHRUTI

18FLICDDN01144
BATCH (2018-2023)

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20TH JUNE, 2023

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL,

ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

1
 DECLARATION

I, Sushali Shruti, student of BBA.LLB (2018-2023), hereby declare that the project work entitled
“CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ADVOCATES” submitted to the ICFAI Law School, ICFAI
University, Dehradun is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Ms.
Shraddha Shukla, SIP Faculty-in-Charge, ICFAI Law School, Dehradun.

Date: June 20th, 2023 Name: Sushali Shruti

Roll No. 18FLICDDN01144

Batch. 2018-2023

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “Contempt of Court by Advocates” submitted
by Sushali Shruti in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of “2018-2023”
to ICFAI Law School, ICFAI University, Dehradun is a record of the candidate’s own work carried
out by her under my supervision. The matter embodied in this project is original and has not been
submitted for the award of any other degree.

DATE: June 20th, 2023

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would specially like to thank Ms. Shraddha; without whose constant support and guidance this
project would have been a distant reality.

This work is an outcome of an unparalleled infrastructural support that I have received from ICFAI
Law School, ICFAI University, Dehradun.
I owe my deepest gratitude to the library staff of the college.

It would never have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support from my
family, specially my parents.

This study bears testimony to the active encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and well-
wishers.

Name: Sushali Shruti

Roll no: 18FLICDDN01144

Batch. 2018-2023

4
Contents

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................... 7
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ...................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................... 9
TYPES OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ......................................................................................... 9
Section 2(A) of The Contempt of courts Act,1971 , provides that contempt of court means civil
contempt or criminal contempt . ................................................................................................. 9
contempt of court classified mainly in two categories ............................................................ 9
1) Civil contempt of courts,and ............................................................................................... 9
2) Criminal contempt of Court ................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 14
CONTEMPT OF COURT AS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ............................................ 14
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..19

5
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Contempt of court is a matter concerning the fair administration of justice, and aims to punish any
act hurting the dignity and authority of judicial tribunals. 1 Lord Diplock defines it in a following
way: Although criminal contempt of court may take a variety of forms they all share a common
characteristic: they involve an interference with the due administration of justice, either in a
particular case or more generally as a continuing process. It is justice itself that is flouted by
contempt of court, not the individual court or judge who is attempting to administer it.6 Contempt
of court because of its peculiar and contentious nature had led to contradictory opinions among
scholars, jurists and various masses, hence no satisfactory definition of contempt of court can be
had. The term contempt of court is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular
proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or inhibit citizens from availing
themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes2. Our Constitution has granted the Supreme
Court and the High Court with the power to punish any person for contempt of court under Articles
129 and 215 respectively.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of the study is to read and analyze the contempt of court by an advocate and to study
cases in relation to the same.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research method used is the doctrinal method. The sources used are secondary sources.

1
Mriganka Shekhar Dutta & Amba Uttara Kak, CONTEMPT OF COURT: FINDING THE LIMIT, NUJS LAW
REVIEW 56, (2009)
2
Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Times News Paper Ltd. (1973) 3 All. E.R. 54, 71.

6
CHAPTER 2

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicial proceedings must of necessity
result in hampering of the administration of Law and in interfering with the due course of justice.
This necessarily constitutes contempt of court. Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by any
conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregard or
to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during litigation. Halsbury defines contempt
as consisting of words spoken or written which obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of
justice. Black Odgers enunciates that it is contempt of court to publish words which tend to bring
the administration of Justice into contempt, to prejudice the fair trial of any cause or matter which
is the subject of Civil or Criminal proceeding or in any way to obstruct the cause of Justice.

In case of India, under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines contempt of
court as civil contempt or criminal contempt, it is generally felt that the existing law relating to
contempt of courts is somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory. The jurisdiction to punish
for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizens, namely, the right to
personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was, therefore, considered advisable to
have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a special committee.

In pursuance of this, a committee was set up in 1961 under the chairmanship of the late H N Sanyal,
the then additional solicitor general. The committee made a comprehensive examination of the law
and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own country
and various foreign countries. The recommendations, which the committee made, took note of the
importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the
status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice. The recommendations of the
committee have been generally accepted by the government after

7
considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the state governments, union
territory administrations, the Supreme Court, the high courts and the judicial commissioners.

A case of contempt is C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta3, the respondent published and circulated a
booklet in public purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah while acting in his
judicial capacity. Mr. C.K. Daphtary, along with others, filed a petition alleging that the booklet
has scandalized the judges who participated in the decision and brought into contempt the authority
of the highest court of the land and thus weakened the confidence of the people in it. The Supreme
Court, in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down that the test in each case is
whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will
interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court.

3
(1971 1 SCC 626)

8
CHAPTER 3

TYPES OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS

Section 2(A) of The Contempt of courts Act,1971 , provides that contempt of court means civil
contempt or criminal contempt .
contempt of court classified mainly in two categories
1) Civil contempt of courts, and
2) Criminal contempt of Court

The willful disobedience to the order of court is considered civil contempt, while the scandalizing
or lowering the authority of the court in the public eye is considered criminal contempt. The
classification or categorization of contempt of court into Civil and criminal are not closed. There
is several contempt which do not fall in any of them. for example, undue delay in pronouncing the
order by a judge or judge coming late to the court by amount to contempt of court, but they are not
covered exactly by the definition of classification of contempt in the act .

1) Civil contempt-
According to section 2 (b) of The Contempt of court Act, 1971, civil contempt means "willful
disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction , order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to the Court . "
Thus, Civil contempt consist of disobeying the orders and process of the court. Civil contempt
involves only the willful disobedience of the court’s order or breach of undertaking given to the
court. The purpose of the proceeding for the Civil contempt is not only to punish the container but
also to exercise enforcement and obedience to the order of the court .
civil contempt serves two purposes -

1) Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; and

2) coercion to compel the container to do what the court requires of him.

9
To constitutes 'civil contempt' the following things are required to be proved :

A) there is disobedience of the order, decree etc. of the court or breach of undertaking given to the
court ;and

B) the disobedience of Breach is Willful.

for civil contempt it is necessary that order which has been disobeyed must have been passed by
the court having jurisdiction to pass such order. If the order has been passed without jurisdiction ,
it is not binding on the party against which it has been Passed by the and therefore disobedience
of such order will not amount to contempt of Court. The burden to prove that the court has no
jurisdiction to pass the order lies on the person who alleges it.

When the court orders a person to do something or not to do something, it is incumbent on

that party to comply with that order forthwith. The person disobeying the order of the court will
alone be responsible for the consequence and he cannot be heard to say that he referred the matter
to his higher officer.

The breach of undertaking given to the court is also taken as contempt, if it is willful. the
basis for taking the breach of undertaking as contempt of court is that the container by making a
false representation to the court obtains a benefit for himself and if he fails to Honor the
undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the Court itself and thereby obstructs the course of justice
and brings disrepute to the judicial institution. But the breach of undertaking recorded are forming
part of compromise decree, would not amount to contempt of court.

For civil contempt, the disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the court or breach of
undertaking given to The Court Must Be willful. Willful means the action or state for which
compulsion of ignorance or accident cannot be pleaded as excuse, intentional, deliberate, due to
perversity or self-will. To establish that the disobedience is willful , it is not necessary to show that
it is contumacious in the sense that there is a direct intention to disobey the order; it is sufficient
to show that effective administration of justice requires some penalty for disobedience to the order
of the court ,if it is a more than casual, accidental or unintentional .

10
 The reasons of the Civil contempt are willful disobedience to any judgement degree,
direction, order, or writ of a court, and not Mere inaction to give effect to it. The conduct of the
alleged contemner must be willful showing deliberate and conscious disregard of the court order .
or a despising or disdainful attitude towards the verdict of the court .

If a party who has full knowledge of the order of the court or is conscious and aware of the
consequences and implications of the court's order, ignores it or acts in violation of the court’s
order, it must be held that disobedience is willful.

Whether the disobedience has been willful or not It is an issue to be decided by the court, taking
into account the facts the circumstances of the case.

2) Criminal contempt -

According to Section 2(c) of The Contempt of courts Act, 1971 , "criminal contempt" means the
publication ( whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs ,or by visible representations, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other Act whatsoever which -

I) scandalize or tends to scandalize, or lower or tends to lower, the authority of any Court ;or

II) prejudice or interfere or tents to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding ; or

III) interface or tends to interfere with or obstructs, tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner.

Criminal contempt is a conduct directed against dignity of Court.

Criminal contempt is directed against the power and dignity of the court. The definition of criminal
contempt is wide enough to include any act of a person which would tend to interfere with the
administration of justice or with which would lower to the authority of the court.

To constitute the criminal contempt it is not necessary that the publication or other acts
should have actually resulted in scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court but it is enough

11
that the act is likely to result in scandalizing. Thus the offense of contempt is complete by mere
attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of Justice .

'Scandalize' connotes to speak falsely, or maliciously, to bring into approach ,dishonor,

disgrace, to offend the feelings, conscious or property of an action. ' scandalize' also means to
offend a moral feeling, and to make a public scandal of, to utter false or malicious reports of a
person's conduct, slander, or to bring same or discredit or to disgrace . We can say that the
disgraceful word scandalize means the defamatory , derogatory, false malicious disgraceful
statements regarding the persons as Judges.
It is for the court to decide whether or not the publication or act is likely to scandalize or
lower the authority of the court or interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding for
administration of justice.
The publication act will be taken as criminal contempt, if it has resulted in scandalizing the
authority of court or interference with the due course of judicial proceedings or interfering the
administration of justice in any matter.

The word ' Publication ' was given very wide meaning . The publication may be by words
written or spoken by sign's or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter. but in the Act
it is not clear as to whether the publication should be taken to mean Publication to the general
public or any kind of Publication.
Scandalizing the court means any hostile criticism of the judge ; any Personal attack on him
unconnected with the office he holds, is dealt with under the ordinary rules of Slender and libel.
The criticism can form the basis for committal of contempt of court only if it is made against the
judge in exercise of his judicial function.
The publication which prejudice or interferes with or tends to interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceeding is taken as contempt of court. Whenever the publication or any other act unduly
influences the result of a litigation it is treated as criminal contempt of court and a
punished therefore .

If the parties to a pending proceeding are abused and vilified and the words are likely to
cause prejudice to the case, it will amount to contempt of court.

12
 The publication of doing of any other act which interferes or tend to interfere with or
obstructs or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any of other manner is also taken as
contempt of court .
An Advocate is an officer of the court and hence undue interference with the Advocate in the
discharge of his professional functions amount to contempt of court .

Any conduct by which course or Justice is prevented either by a party or a stranger is a

contempt of court. Any person who interferes or prevent other person from coming to the stream
of justice is he liable for contempt of Court. The Court must be very careful in analyzing the facts
and circumstances of the case for determining whether or not the action taken by a person amounts
to interfere with the course of Justice.
Witnesses are also integral part of the judicial process and they must have freedom to perform their
duties and so interference with performance of their duties is taken as contempt of Court

Abuse of the process of court calculated to hamper the due course hamper of judicial
proceedings or the administration of Justice amounts to contempt of court.

13
CHAPTER 4

CONTEMPT OF COURT AS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Contempt of court may be defined as an offense of being disobedient or disrespectful towards the
court or its officers in the form of certain behavior that defies authority, justice, and dignity of the
court.4In various cases involving contempt of court, the court held that if any advocate or legal
practitioner is found guilty of the act of contempt of court, he/she may be imprisoned for six years
and may be suspended from practicing as an advocate (In re Vinay Chandra Mishra).The court
also held that license of the advocate to practice a legal profession might be canceled by the
Supreme Court or High Court in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction.

There are many other landmark judgments regarding the cases involving professional misconduct
of the advocates. In the case of V.C. Rangadurai v. D.Gopalan5, the court looked into the matter
of professional misconduct in such a way that the decision was made in a humanitarian manner,
considering the future of the accused in this case. The court held that “even so justice has a
correctional edge, a socially useful function, especially if the delinquent is too old to be pardoned
and too young to be disbarred. Therefore, a curative, not cruel punishment has to be delivered in
the social setting of the legal profession”. The court then gave the decision in such a way that it
looked at each and every aspect concerning the case as well as the parties concerned. It adopted a
deterrent was of justice mechanism so that the accused person is awarded certain punishments but
also provided a warning towards such other people who intend to commit acts of a similar nature.
The judgment turned out to be a landmark in cases concerning professional misconduct as it
delivered an effective judgment and but did not jeopardize the future of the accused person. In
various other cases like J.S. Jadhav v. Musthafa Haji Muhammed Yusuf6, the court delivered the

4
Retrieved on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
5
V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors 1979 AIR 281
6
J.S Jadhav v. Musthafa Haji Muhammed Yusuf and Ors 1993 AIR 1535

14
decision in such a way that it created a notion in the minds of the wrongdoers that offenders will
be punished accordingly.

The Supreme Court has, in some of its decisions, elucidated on the concept of ‘misconduct’, and
its application. In Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry,7 a complaint was filed by the
appellant against an advocate to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, that while appearing in a suit as a
counsel, he wrote a letter stating that the concerned judge, before whom the suit is pending accepts
bribes, and asked for Rs. 10,000 to bribe and influence the judge to obtain a favorable order. The
Disciplinary Committee, holding that the advocate was guilty if “misconduct”, stated that such an
act made the advocate “totally unfit to be a lawyer.” The Supreme Court, upholding the finding of
the Rajasthan Bar Council held that the legal profession is not a trade or business. Members
belonging to the profession have a particular duty to uphold the integrity of the profession and to
discourage corruption in order to ensure that justice is secured in a legal manner. The act of the
advocate was misconduct of the highest degree as it not only obstructed the administration of
justice, but eroded the reputation of the profession in the opinion of the public.

In another case, Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali 8the Supreme Court explored the
amplitude and extent of the words “professional misconduct” in Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
The facts of the case involved an advocate (appearing as a litigant in the capacity of the respondent,
and not an advocate in a rent control proceeding) assaulted and kicked the complainant and asked
him to refrain from proceeding with the case. The main issue in this case was whether the act of
the advocate amounted to misconduct, the action against which could be initiated in the Bar
Council, even though he was not acting in the capacity of an advocate. It was upheld by the
Supreme Court that a lawyer is obliged to observe the norms of behavior expected of him, which
make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as an officer of the Court. Therefore,
in spite of the fact that he was not acting in his capacity as an advocate, his behavior was unfit for
an advocate, and the Bar Council was justified in proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings
against him.
In the recent case of B. M. Verma v. Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission 9court noted that, it
was given the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction. In the case of

7
2001 6 SCC 1. 165
8
2004 AIR 2440
9
B. M. Verma v. Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission. Appeal No. 156 of 2007

15
Court of Its Own Motion v. State dealing with the contempt proceedings involving two senior
advocates, observed that ‘given the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction, it cannot afford to be hypersensitive and therefore, a trivial misdemeanor would not
warrant contempt action. Circumspection is all the more necessary because as observed by the SC
in SC Bar Association v. Union of India the Court is in effect the jury, the judge and the hangman;
while in M.R. Parashar H. L. Sehgal it was observed that the Court is also a prosecutor Anil Kumar
Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh10, reiterates this.

In the most controversial and leading case of R.K. Anand v. Registrar of Delhi High Court 11, On
30th May, 2007 a TV news channel NDTV carried a report relating to a sting operation. The report
concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in an ongoing
Sessions trial in what is commonly called the BMW case. On 31st May, 2007 a Division Bench of
this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ Petition and issued a direction to the Registrar
General to collect all materials that may be available in respect of the telecast and also directed
NDTV to preserve the original material including the CD/video pertaining to the sting operation.
The question for our consideration is whether Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan, Senior
Advocates and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate have committed criminal contempt of Court
or not. It was observed that prima facie their acts and conduct were intended to subvert the
administration of justice in the pending BMW case and in particular to influence the outcome of
the pending judicial proceedings. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of
the Constitution proceedings for contempt of Court (as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971) were initiated against Mr. Anand, Mr. Khan and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma and
they were asked to show cause why they should not be punished accordingly. Court said that
Courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and reverence for the majesty of
law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice according to law is operated by the
court. Proceedings inside the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly
manner. The very sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous
hour, standing in the court and arguing a case or cross-examining a witness on the same day,
unaffected by the contemptuous behavior he hurled at the court, would erode the dignity of the

10
2002. 4 SCC 21
11
2009. 8 SCC 106

16
court and even corrode the majesty of it besides impairing the confidence of the public in the
efficacy of the institution of the courts. This necessitates vesting of power with the HC to formulate
rules for regulating the proceedings inside the court including the conduct of advocates during
such proceedings. That power should not be confused with the right to practice law. Thus court
held that there may be ways in which conduct and actions of an advocate may pose a real and
imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings cardinal to any court’s functioning, apart from
constituting a substantive offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct. In such a
situation the court does not only have the right but also the obligation to protect itself. Hence, to
that end it can bar the advocate from appearing before the courts for an appropriate period of time.
In the present case since the contents of the sting recordings were admitted and there was no need
for the proof of integrity and correctness of the electronic materials. Finally the Supreme Court
upheld High Court’s verdict making Anand guilty on the same count. On the other hand, the
Supreme Court let off I U Khan, who was found guilty by the High Court.
Vinay Chandra Mishra, 12in re; In this case a senior advocate in on being asked a question in the
court started to shout at the judge and said that no question could have been put to him. He
threatened to get the judge transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought against him in
Parliament. He further said that he has turned up many Judges and created a good scene in the
Court. He asked the judge to follow the practice of this Court. He wanted to convey that admission
is as a course and no arguments are heard, at this stage. But this act was not only the question of
insulting of a Judge of this institution but it is a matter of institution as a whole. In case dignity of
Judiciary is not being maintained then where this institution will stand. The concerned judge wrote
a letter informing the incident to the chief justice of India. A show cause notice was issued to him.

Whether the advocate had committed a professional misconduct? Is he guilty of the offence of the
criminal contempt of the Court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by
trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the Court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening
language, and convict him of the said offence. Since the contemner is a senior member of the Bar
and also adorns the high offices such as those of the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, the
President of the U.P. HC Bar Association, Allahabad and others, his conduct is bound to infect the
members of the Bar all over the country. We are, therefore, of the view that an exemplary

12
1995. 2. SCC 584

17
punishment has to be meted out to him. Thus, the contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks and he shall stand suspended
from practicing as an advocate for a period of three years.

18
CONCLUSION

The role of the lawyers in the society is of great importance. They being part of the system of
delivering justice holds great reverence and respect in the society. Each individual has a well-
defined code of conduct which needs to be followed by the person living in the society. A lawyer
in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to his opponent, a duty
to the court, a duty to the society at large and a duty to himself. It needs a high degree of probity
and poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous stand, more so, when there are
conflicting claims. While discharging duty to the court, a lawyer should never knowingly be a
party to any deception, design or fraud. While placing the law before the court a lawyer is at liberty
to put forth a proposition and canvass the same to the best of his wits and ability so as to persuade
an exposition which would serve the interest of his client and the society.

The advocate, as an officer of the Court, also has the responsibility to render services of sound
quality. Lapses in services in the nature of absence when the matters are called out, the filing of
incomplete and inaccurate pleadings – many times even illegible and without personal check and
verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office
objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties are not merely professional omission. They
amount to positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading
to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters, and detrimentally affects the
entire judicial system.

Furthermore, as the officers of the court the lawyers are required to uphold the dignity of the
judicial office and maintain a respectful attitude towards the Court. This is because the Bar and
the Bench form a noble and dynamic partnership geared to the great social goal of administration
of justice, and the mutual respect of the Bar and the Bench is essential for maintaining cordial
relations between the two. It is the duty of an advocate to uphold the dignity and decorum of the
Court and must of propriety not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute, and ensure that
at no point of time, he oversteps the limit s.

19
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES
1. Journal On Contemporary Issues of Law (JCIL) Vol. 2 Issue 7
2. Soli J. Sorabjee, “Truth and Law of Contempt” 1985, Supreme Court Weekly Reporter II
(Jal.) 17
3. Richard C. Brautigan, constitutional challenge to the contempt power, 60, Geo.LJ, 1972,
1513 at 1513.
4. John Charles Fox “The Nature of Contempt of Court” 37 L.Q.R., 191, 194 (1921).

WEBSITES
 JSTOR
 SCCONLINE
 LAWSUIT
 MANUPATRA
 SSRN.COM
 LEGALSERVICES.COM
 INDIAN KANOON

20