Intimidating Magistrate In Open Court: Bombay High Court Convicts Former Bar President & Son For Contempt Of Court
The Court refused to accept apology tendered only on its oral direction; noted that advocates cannot intimidate judicial officers to secure orders; submitting paper apology after deliberately delaying proceedings ceases to be act of true penitence.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has strongly remarked that obstruction in the judicial process by an advocate cannot be tolerated, finding two advocates, a father and son, guilty of criminal contempt for threatening a Civil Judge in open court. The Court observed that threatening a judge with action and with proof of corruption deprives him of the ability to pass orders fearlessly, and imposed fine and costs.
The Court refused to accept the unconditional apology, holding that it was not offered at the earliest opportunity and came only on the Court's oral direction. It noted that the father was then President of the Arni Taluka Court Bar Association, and referred both advocates to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The Court directed each advocate to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 within two weeks and costs of Rs. 50,000 into the Public Welfare Account.
A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode observed, “Interference in the administration of justice by giving threats, addressing the judicial officer in loud voice and prohibiting him from passing orders are definitely serious acts. More so, when such acts have been done by an advocate who is the officer of the Court, he should promote and see that all others who are present should also maintain the decorum of the Court. Obstruction in judicial process by an advocate cannot be tolerated…”.
“…In our opinion, the said conduct of the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 is scandalous and come under the misconduct. If they are having any grievance regarding the order of the Court, admittedly, it was judicial order, an opportunity was there with them to challenge the said order, but threatening to the Judge by saying that they would take action against him and they are having proofs of corruption, admittedly, depriving him from passing an order fearlessly. These statements apparently made to pressurise and terrorise him from passing an order”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate J.M. Gandhi, appeared as Amicus Curiae while Advocate Rahul Mirza appeared for the respondent (non-applicant).
“...Facts denoting behaviour of the respondents show that they have threatened the present applicant by saying if he passes an adverse order or if he takes anything on record and takes action accordingly, they will not leave him and the proof of corruption against him would be produced to the superior by saying in marathi "जर काही रेकॉर्डवर घेतले आणि कार्य ही के ली तर आम् ही तुम्हाला सोडणार नाही तसेच तुमचेविरुध्द भ्रष्टाचाराचे पुरा पु वे वरिष्ठ अधिका-याना सादर करु". Utterance of these words by the non-applicant No.2 who was the then President of the Bar Association is to terrorise, pressurise the Judicial Officer. The due administration of law is of greater importance than the success or failure of any individual”, the Bench said.
The reference was made by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Arni, Yavatmal. On November 26, 2021, in a case fixed for return of bailable warrants, he issued a non-bailable warrant against an accused who stayed absent despite service.
The son, Sagar Durgadas Rathod, said the accused was present but unable to enter, and the accused was absent when called. He sought cancellation of the warrant, said the matter was settled, and when refused allegedly shouted at the Court and said the Bar would pass a resolution against it. The father, Durgadas D. Rathod, then entered while the order was being dictated and allegedly said that nothing should be recorded, or they would not spare the judge and would give proof of corruption to senior officers.
The judge issued show cause notices, and the advocates filed replies only on June 25, 2024. Subsequent to which, the High Court took cognizance and, after they failed to appear despite service, issued bailable warrants on September 25, 2023 and appointed Advocate J.M. Gandhi as Amicus Curiae.
On February 12, 2025 it noted prima facie satisfaction of contemptuous conduct, and on March 03, 2025 it declined to accept the apology and framed charges. Apology affidavits were then filed before the judicial officer.
The Court held that, if the advocates had a grievance against a judicial order, the remedy was to challenge it, and that the threats were meant to pressurise and terrorise the judge. It found their defence that Bar resolutions against the judge prompted the reference unsubstantiated. It added that, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, fine is the rule and imprisonment the exception.
“…apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea. We have already held present respondent guilty for the Contempt of Court Act. We are of the considered view that instead of sending the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jail, it would be just and proper to impose fine and direct them to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- each and to refer the proceedings to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate appropriate action against both the respondents”, it noted.
Cause Title: Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid v. Sagar Durgadas Rathod & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:13168-DB)
Appearances:
Applicant: J.M. Gandhi, Amicus Curiae.
Respondent: Rahul Mirza, S.P. Bhandarkar, Atharva Khadse, Advocates.