B. Sunitha vs The State of Telangana, (2018) 1 SCC 638Criminal Appeal No.

2068 OF
2017(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO.10700 OF 2015)Date of
Judgment: 5 December 2017
• Court Name: Supreme Court of India
• Case Name: B. Sunitha vs The State of Telangana
• Citation: (2018) 1 SCC 638
• Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2068 of 2017
• Appellant: B. Sunitha
• Respondent: The State of Telangana
• Bench: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Introduction
This case relates to an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India against the High
Court of Judicature order at Hyderabad. The appellant, B Sunitha, sought the
quashing of proceedings initiated against her under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act of 1881. The main issue in the case was whether the appellant was
liable under section 138 for issuing a dishonoured cheque to her advocate as a fee.

Facts
The appellant’s (B. Sunitha’s) husband had died in a motor accident, and she, her
children, and her parents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(MACT). The MACT awarded compensation, and the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs
towards the advocate’s fee on various dates. However, the advocate forced the
appellant to sign another cheque of Rs. 3 lakhs, despite stating that she had no
funds in her account. The appellant alleged that the transaction was void under
section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it abused position and the fee
claim was unethical.

Issues
1. Whether the issuance of the dishonoured cheque constituted an offence
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Whether the fee claimed by the advocate, based on a percentage of the
decretal amount, was against professional ethics and public policy.
3. Whether the burden to prove the contract of the fee was on the advocate
or the client in case of a dispute.

Arguments
The appellant argued that charging a percentage of the decretal amount as an
advocate’s fee was against section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, professional
ethics, and public policy. She contended that the issuance of the dishonoured
cheque did not establish a legally enforceable debt and that it was an exploitation
of the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and a client. The appellant also
claimed that the burden of proof regarding the reasonableness and voluntariness of
the fee agreement lay with the advocate.
The respondent advocate argued that the appellant had agreed to pay the
professional fee and had availed his services, thus making her liable for the fee.
He maintained that there was no legal bar to his fee claim and cited examples of
engaging other senior advocates and paying substantial amounts for their services.

Judgment
The Supreme Court held that charging a fee based on a percentage of the decretal
amount was against professional ethics and public policy. The court observed that
the advocate-client relationship is highly fiduciary, and the advocate is in a
position of trust. Mere issuance of a cheque does not establish a legally
enforceable debt, and the advocate must independently prove the existence of a
contract. Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings initiated against the
appellant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Principles Laid Down in the Case
B Sunitha vs the State of Telangana case highlighted these points:
1. Charging a fee based on a percentage of the result of litigation is
against professional ethics and public policy.
2. Mere issuing a cheque does not create a presumption of a legally
enforceable debt in favour of the advocate.
3. The burden of proving the contract of fee lies with the advocate if the
client disputes the quantum of the fee.
4. The advocate-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and advocates
should uphold professional ethics.

Case Analysis: E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v/s T. Narayanan Nambiar

Facts Of The Case

• Mr. E.M.S. Namboodiripad's conviction is based on certain utterances of
the Appellant, when he was Chief Minister, at a Press Conference held by him at
Trivandrum, on November 9, 1967.
• The report of the Press Conference was published the following day in
some Indian newspapers.
• This is what was reported: Marx and Engels considered the judiciary as
an instrument of oppression and even today when the State set up his (sic) not
undergone any change continues to be so; Mr. Nambudiripad told a news conference
this morning. He also said that Judges are lead and dominated by class hatred,
class interests and class prejudices and where the evidence is balanced between a
well-dressed pot-bellied rich man and a poor ill and unable to read person the
judge instinctively favors the former the Chief Minister alleged. The Chief
Minister said that election of Judges would a better arrangement, but unless the
basic state set up is changed, it could not solve the problem. Referring to the
Constitution the Chief Minister said the oath he had taken was limited only to see
that the constitutional provisions are practiced. 'I have not taken any oath'
because "every word and every clause in the Constitution is sacred."
• And thereafter the proceedings commenced in the High Court, the
appellant was calls upon to show why he should not be committed for contempt.
• In an affidavit in reply, the appellant stated that the reports were
"substantially correct", though incomplete in some respects. He supplied some
omissions and pleaded want of intention to show disrespect to the judiciary and
justification on the ground that the offence charged could not be held to be
committed, in view of the guarantees of freedom of speech and expression under the
Constitution.
• He claimed that his observations did no more than give expression to
the Marxist philosophy -and what was contained in the programme of the Communist
Party of India. By a majority judgment the appellant was convicted for contempt of
court and fined Rs. 1000/- or simple imprisonment for one month.
• In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that the law of contempt must be read without encroaching upon the guarantee of
freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) : and that the intention of
the appellant in making his remarks at the press conference should be examined in
the light of his political views which he was at liberty to put before the people.
• He sought to justify the remarks as an exposition of his ideology which
claimed was 'based on the teachings of Marx and Engels and on this ground claimed
protection of The first clause of Art. 19(1).
Issues RaisedIssue I:Whether the Appellant has said anything which brings him out
of the protection Article 19(1)(a).Issue II:Whether the appellant has said anything
which exposes him to the charge of contempt of [Link] InvolvedFreedom To
Speech And Expression:Article 19(1) (a) is the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression for the entire citizen. One�s opinions may be expressed by
words of mouth, in writing, printing, pictures, or any other mode. This freedom
includes a person�s right to propagate or publish the views of other [Link]
freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the entitlement to express one�s
views and opinions at any matter through any [Link] this right is not absolute
and restricted by Article 19(2)following are the restrictions:
• security of the State,
• Friendly relations The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a)
includes the right to express one�s with foreign States,
• Public order,
• Decency and morality,
• contempt of court,
• Defamation,
• Incitement to an offence, and
• Sovereignty and integrity of India.

JudgementDecision:Appellant is held liable for the contempt of court and the

conviction was upheld by sentencing him to a nominal fine. They accordingly reduce
the sentence of fine to Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine he will (sic) mint
for one week. With this modification the appeal will be(sic).