Basil Scott, C.J.
1. This matter comes before us on the petition of the Government Pleader which states:-
1. That Mr. Jagannath Moreshwar Samant, B.A., LL. B. is a District Court Pleader, and practises in the Courts of the District and Sessions Judge of Sholapur and Courts Subordinate thereto.
2. That on the 30th July last a public meeting was held at Sholapur Before the Eon. Mr. Basil Scott, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Batchelor.Government PleaderV.Jagannath m. Samant.Nove. 16 1908Civil Appli
tion No. 523 of 1908Regulation 11 of 1827, Section 56-Pleader-Misconduct-Disciplinary jurisdiction -Highhings spoke in favour of the fifth resolution passed on the occasion and was in the chair when the said resolution was put to the meeting. The resolution was in the Marathi language and was to the following effect:-
That this meeting contemptuously denounces the Honourable Mr. Justice Davar of the Bombay High Court, who at the time of announcing sentence made unchecked and unconnected and unmeaning assertions, which even the enemies of the respected Tilak would have been ashamed to make, and thereby branded our sorrow (sore hearts).
4. Petitioner submits that such conduct at a Public Meeting in a Pleader in regard to a resolution contemptuously denouncing a Judge of the High Court in respect of his solemn duty as a presiding Judge is not only contempt of Court, but is further reprehensible as' a misbehaviour falling within the purview of Section 56 of Regulation II of 1827, and as such can and ought to be dealt with by this Honourable Court in its Disciplinary Jurisdiction.
2. The petition is supported by affidavits of Mr. Barve, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Mr. Dikshit, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholapur.
3. In showing cause against the application two affidavits were made use of by counsel for Mr. Samant from which it appears that he did not speak on the fifth Resolution beyond asking if there was any objection to it. The Police Officers depose to words used by him defamatory of Mr. Justice Davar, but this is denied by Mr. Samant: we will therefore assume that they were not used.
4. It is admitted that Mr. Samant presided at the meeting, opened the proceedings with a speech and proposed the first two resolutions. He then called on other speakers to propose the other resolutions and took the sense of the meeting upon them. He attempts to excuse his conduct by pleading that he did not know exactly the terms of the fifth resolution until it was read out by the proposer. It is clear however that he not only listened to the speeches on the resolution and to the reading of the resolution without protest but also read out the resolution himself to the meeting and invited it to agree to the terms thereof.
5. We are of opinion that in so conducting himself at the meeting Mr. Samant was guilty of misbehaviour which renders him liable to suspension or removal from the roll of pleaders-Pleaders are a privileged class enrolled for the purpose of rendering assistance to the Courts in the administration of justice. Their position, training and practice give them influence with the public and it is directly contrary to their duty to Use that influence for the purpose of bringing the administration of justice into contempt. Mr. Samant, who owes his position to a Sanad issued by this Court, has invited and procured the passing at a meeting of nearly a thousand people of a resolution contemptuously denouncing or protesting against the conduct of a Judge of this Court in passing sentence at a trial at the Criminal Sessions.
6. This conduct calls for more serious notice than a mere expression of disapproval. We suspend Mr. Samant from practice for six months. He must deliver up his Sanad to the District Judge or the Registrar of this Court and may apply for it again in six months time.