Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
"Attacks The Very Foundation Of Judicial Decorum": Delhi High Court Upholds Jail Sentence Of Advocate For Abusing & Threatening Woman Judicial Officer Inside Courtroom
|The Court said that the advocate’s act of abusing, threatening, and outraging the modesty of the woman judge during proceedings was not merely misconduct but a direct assault on the justice system.
The Delhi High Court refused to reduce the sentence of an advocate convicted for abusing, threatening, and outraging the modesty of a sitting woman judicial officer inside her courtroom, holding that such conduct attacked the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity.
A Single Bench of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “…the injustice was not directed at a distant litigant or an unknown complainant. It was inflicted upon a sitting female Judicial Officer, within her own courtroom – a space that should embody respect, order, and the majesty of law. Here, where she was entrusted with the solemn duty to dispense „justice‟ without fear or favour, she was subjected to misconduct, threats, and humiliation by one who, as an advocate, was duty-bound to uphold the dignity of the court. This is, therefore, not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself – where a judge, who symbolizes the impartial voice of the law, became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.”
The Court added, “The robe of an advocate is not just a symbol of learning, but of character. Therefore, every word uttered, every act performed in a courtroom, must reflect the solemnity of the profession. When an advocate, who is duty-bound to uphold the law, chooses instead to degrade and demean a judicial officer, he not only fails his professional oath but betrays the justice system itself.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sanju Gupta, while Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
In 2015, while a Metropolitan Magistrate was presiding over court proceedings at the Karkardooma Court Complex, the Petitioner entered the courtroom and was informed that his matter had already been adjourned. He then began shouting, used abusive and disrespectful language, and objected to the adjournment.
According to the record, when asked about his vakalatnama, the Petitioner responded that it was attached to the challan. Despite this, the petitioner continued to raise his voice and interrupted Court proceedings. It was alleged that he approached the dais and issued threats, including “aisa karo matter transfer kar do CMM ko, order karo abhi,” and “mein kal khud hi jaunga High Court, mein dekhta hun tumhe abhi.”
The complaint further recorded that the Petitioner refused to leave the courtroom when asked and stated, “mein kahin nahi jaunga, mein dekhta hu kis me dum hai mujhe bahar nikalne ka.” He then used a sexually offensive expression, stating “chadhi far kar rakh dunga.”
The matter was reported to the police, and an FIR was registered under various provisions of the IPC. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 186, 189, 188, 228, 354A, 509, and 353 IPC. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 186, 189, 228, 509, and 353 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment, with the terms directed to run consecutively. The sentence totalled two years.
An appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which also directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
The Petitioner did not challenge the conviction, but confined his revision to the question of sentence. He submitted that he had already undergone 5 months and 17 days in custody, had clean antecedents, and was remorseful. He sought that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
The Respondents opposed the plea, submitting that the Trial Court had already shown leniency by not awarding the maximum sentence and that the nature of the conduct warranted no further reduction.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted, “The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over Court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, in this Court’s opinion, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity.”
It was further stated, “This is, therefore, not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself – where a judge, who symbolizes the impartial voice of the law, became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.”
On the plea of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, the Court held, “To trivialise such conduct under the garb of emotional outburst or momentary lapse is to reflect a patriarchal mindset – one that struggles to respect women in authority and seeks to normalise the unacceptable. This cannot be permitted. Not in law. Not in court.”
The Court reproduced the Trial Court’s reasoning, which stated, “The aggravating circumstances is that the alleged offence has been committed against a public servant during discharge of public function and against a woman. The offences have been committed inside a court room, by accused, who is an officer of the court and is supposed to not only assist the court but is also supposed to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court. Therefore, commission of these serious offences by officer of the court despite the duties imposed upon him by Advocates Act, 1961, does not entitle convict to seek leniency from the court.”
The Appellate Court had also held that no reasonable or justified ground existed for taking a lenient view and denied benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The Court concurred, observing that the sentence awarded was within statutory limits and not disproportionate. However, it modified the sentence to read, “…there exists no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of concurrent running of sentences to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order on sentence is modified to the limited extent that all the sentences awarded to the petitioner shall run concurrently – and not consecutively.”
The Court held, “To take a lenient view in a case like the present, where shameful language was used against a judicial officer, would amount to doing injustice to justice… If such an officer is not able to get adequate justice for herself, it may leave a scar or hurt dignity that cannot be permitted.”
The Court directed that the total sentence shall be 18 months of simple imprisonment, to run concurrently, and the Petitioner would surrender within 15 days to serve the remaining sentence. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly.
Cause Title: Sanjay Rathore v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:CRLREV128)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sanju Gupta, Varsha Ahluwalia, Lalit Kumar Sharma, Deepanshu Lakra, Lakshay Tyagi, Akshay Tyagi
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar