The Delhi High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of an Advocate who entered the Court Room with a red tape on his lips symbolising that he had been silenced. The High Court held that such an act was completely in poor taste and unexpected of a lawyer having standing of more than 25 years.

The High Court, however, refrained from passing any order against the lawyer.

The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal held, “In this context, conduct of Mr. Saini, as demonstrated today in the Court, is completely in poor taste and unexpected of a lawyer of the stature of Mr. Saini who, in our understanding, has standing of more than 25 years.”

“This could have prompted us to pass appropriate orders against Mr. Saini, however, considering his standing, we have refrained ourselves from passing such order. However, we place on record our strong displeasure to the unbecoming and unbefitting conduct of Advocate Mr. R.K. Saini”, it added.

Advocate R.K. Saini represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has not less than 25 years of standing, had entered the Court Room leisurely with red stickfast tape on his lips. Through a previous order, the Court had expressed its intention to initiate contempt proceedings against the senior officers of the State Government. When confronted, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner removed the red tape from his lips. The Counsel informed the Court that on the last two hearings, he was stopped midway by the Court during his arguments and as such he had placed those red tapes on his lips, symbolising that he had been silenced.

The matter, which dates back to the year 1993, revolved around the claim of the litigants seeking allotment of promised land under the 20-point programme of the then Prime Minister of India.

Reasoning

Stating that the conduct of the Advocate was in poor taste, the High Court refused to pass any order against him, considering his standing of more than 25 years.

On merits, the Counsel expressed that he was not willing to accept the proposal given by the State Government, even if the State Government was willing to increase the amount of compensation to Rs 5 lakh.

Considering that the Counsel appearing for the State Government sought time to file his response in the form of an affidavit to be sworn by some senior officers of the State Government, the Bench granted two weeks to the counsel. The matter has now been listed on January 21, 2026.

Cause Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. Delhi Administration Thr BDO (Case No.: CONT.CAS(C) 16/2016)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates R.K. Saini, Dashmesh Tripathi

Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, Standing Counsel Sameer Vashisht, Panel Counsel Anubhav Gupta, Advocates Khushboo Mittal, Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Hridyesh Khanna, Harshpreet Singh Chadha

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Nitin W. SambreJustice Anish Dayal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.