"You Cannot Come And Abuse The Judge Who Is Hearing A Matter": Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Sentence Of Advocate Who Outraged Modesty Of Woman Judicial Officer
In 2015, the advocate had stormed into the courtroom, shouted at the judge for adjourning his matter, issued threats and sexually offensive remarks, and refused to leave when directed, leading to his conviction.
The Supreme Court today refused to interfere with the 18-month sentence of an advocate convicted for threatening and using sexually offensive language against a sitting woman judicial officer inside her courtroom, while hearing a plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to reduce the sentence.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan remarked, "... today, majority of our officers in Delhi are women, are lady officers...They will not be able to function in case someone can get away with this sort of a statement.”
When the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the High Court had not properly appreciated the mitigating factors and urged that the sentence be reduced, Justice Manmohan replied, “Just see the expression that has been used... We cannot even tell you in open court... Just look at the expression.”
The Petitioner responded by stating, “My Lord, you are absolutely right. I am seeking only probation, my Lord.” However, the Bench was categorical and stated, “What probation will apply in this matter? You cannot come and abuse the judge who is hearing a matter.”
The Petitioner then claimed that the most offensive expressions attributed to the Petitioner had not initially formed part of the record and were inserted later, which was rejected by the Bench.
However, Justice Manmohan maintained, “No, no. What mitigating factors? After this sentence, you cannot argue anything, no. Look at what is attributed... We cannot entertain this petition after this.”
The Court granted the petitioner two weeks’ time to surrender and refused to interfere with the sentence.
Background
The case stems from a 2015 incident at Karkardooma Court, where the Petitioner, an advocate, abused and threatened a sitting Metropolitan Magistrate in open court after being informed that his matter had already been adjourned. He used abusive language, shouted in court, and interrupted proceedings. He was asked to show his vakalatnama, to which he claimed it was attached with the challan. Despite that, he continued to raise his voice and refused to leave when asked.
The complaint recorded that the Petitioner issued threats like “aisa karo matter transfer kar do CMM ko, order karo abhi” and “mein kal khud hi jaunga High Court, mein dekhta hun tumhe abhi”. It was further alleged that he used a sexually offensive expression: “chadhi far kar rakh dunga”, which formed the core of the charge under Section 509 IPC.
An FIR was registered under multiple provisions of the IPC, including Sections 186, 189, 228, 354A, 509, and 353. The Trial Court convicted him under five sections and sentenced him to a total of two years’ simple imprisonment, with the sentences to run consecutively. The Appellate Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the sentence, also imposing a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the complainant.
In revision before the Delhi High Court, the Petitioner did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of sentence, stating that he had already undergone over five months in custody, had clean antecedents, and regretted the incident.
The Delhi High Court, however, refused to reduce the sentence beyond converting it to 18 months of simple imprisonment to run concurrently, noting, “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 High Court observed that the conduct attacked the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity and was not a matter where the benefit of probation or further leniency could be justified.
Cause Title: Sanjay Rathore v. State (Govt. of NCT) & Anr. (SLP(Crl) No. 8930/2025)
