When the Dignity of a Judicial Officer Is Torn, the Law Must Act | Delhi High Court Refuses Leniency, Upholds Sentence for Gendered Courtroom Abuse, Orders sentence to run Concurrently
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, on 26 May 2025, delivered a judgment upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon a practicing advocate who had been found guilty of outraging the modesty of a sitting judicial officer within a courtroom. While the Court rejected the plea for reduction in sentence to the period already undergone, it modified the order to the limited extent that all sentences awarded shall run concurrently rather than consecutively. Consequently, the total imprisonment period is reduced to 18 months from the earlier aggregated sentence of two years.
The Court held that taking a lenient view in such a matter would amount to "doing injustice to justice," particularly when the misconduct was directed against a judicial officer discharging her duties. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender within fifteen days and serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. The judgment stresses the importance of preserving the dignity of judicial officers and the institutional sanctity of courtrooms.
The incident in question occurred on 30 October 2015 in the courtroom of a Metropolitan Magistrate at the Karkardooma Courts Complex, North-East District, Delhi. Around 3:50 PM, while the presiding officer, referred to as Ms. "X," was conducting proceedings, the advocate entered the courtroom with a colleague. Upon being informed that the matter concerning his client’s vehicle had been adjourned to 31 October 2015, the petitioner became agitated and began shouting.
The petitioner allegedly used disrespectful language towards the presiding officer, demanding immediate orders in the case. When questioned about his vakalatnama, he asserted that it was attached with the challan, which was confirmed. Despite this, the petitioner escalated the situation by shouting louder and causing a disruption. The presiding officer had to pause the court proceedings.
The situation worsened as the petitioner reportedly charged towards the dais and threatened the judicial officer. He declared that he would move an application to transfer the matter and threatened to escalate the matter to higher authorities. He made statements such as “mein tumhari complaint karunga CMM ke pass” and “mein kal khud hi jaunga High Court.” He continued to demand immediate orders and created a disturbance.
The complaint further states that the petitioner began banging on the table and refused to leave the courtroom. When asked to leave, he is alleged to have said, “mein kahin nahi jaunga, mein dekhta hu kis me dum hai mujhe bahar nikalne ka.” He also reportedly made an offensive and vulgar comment towards the presiding officer, saying, “chadhi far kar rakh dunga.”
The judicial officer suspected that the petitioner might be under the influence of alcohol and directed that he undergoes a breath analysis. However, the petitioner fled before the test could be conducted. A formal complaint was submitted to the police, and an FIR (No. 0885/2015) was registered on 31 October 2015 at P.S. Farsh Bazar under Sections 186, 189, 353, 354, and 509 IPC.
Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 8 December 2016. Charges under Sections 186, 189, 188, 228, 354A, 355, and 509 IPC were framed on 4 May 2018. Nine prosecution witnesses and two defense witnesses were examined. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 28 September 2019, convicted the petitioner under Sections 186, 189, 228, 509, and 353 IPC. He was acquitted under Sections 188 and 354A IPC.
The sentence imposed by the Trial Court on 30 September 2019 included: 15 days simple imprisonment in default of fine for Section 186 IPC; three months simple imprisonment and fine under Section 189 IPC; one-month simple imprisonment in default under Section 228 IPC; three months simple imprisonment and fine under Section 353 IPC; and 18 months simple imprisonment with fine under Section 509 IPC. Sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
The petitioner appealed in Criminal Appeal No. 206/2019, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 20 April 2023. The sentence was upheld, with an added direction to pay Rs. 50,000 compensations to the complainant in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi.
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging only the sentence, not the conviction. The Court had earlier suspended his sentence on 16 August 2024, considering that he had already spent over five months in judicial custody.
“Justice may be blind... but it is not silent,” the Court recorded, stating that justice must respond clearly and fearlessly, especially when the dignity of a judicial officer is compromised.
“The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over Court proceedings... attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity,” the Court stated, dismissing the argument for leniency based on the petitioner's clean antecedents and remorse.
The Court noted that the incident “was inflicted upon a sitting female Judicial Officer, within her own courtroom – a space that should embody respect, order, and the majesty of law.” It observed that the petitioner, being an officer of the court, had a heightened obligation to uphold dignity, which he gravely breached.
Regarding gendered abuse, the Court stated, “When a female judge becomes the target of personal indignity... it reflects not only a personal wrong but also the systemic vulnerability women continue to face.” It cautioned against treating women in empowered roles as symbolically immune to indignity and stated the institutional need for their protection.
“The robe of an advocate is not just a symbol of learning, but of character... he not only fails his professional oath but betrays the justice system itself,” the Court stated, reinforcing the responsibility borne by advocates.
Dismissing the claim that the sentence was disproportionate, the Court observed: “To trivialise such conduct under the garb of emotional outburst... is to reflect a patriarchal mindset – one that struggles to respect women in authority.”
The Court noted that the Trial Court had already taken a lenient approach by not imposing the maximum punishment. It quoted the Trial Court’s rationale: “The aggravating circumstances is that the alleged offence has been committed against a public servant during discharge of public function and against a woman... Therefore, commission of these serious offences by officer of the court... does not entitle convict to seek leniency from the court.”
The Appellate Court had similarly noted: “No reasonable or justified ground to take a lenient view against the appellant is made out... the present case is not a fit case to grant benefit of Probation Of Offenders Act.”
The Court upheld the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. However, it modified the manner in which the sentence was to be served.
“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.
“Consequently, the total sentence to be actually undergone by the petitioner shall be confined to 18 months, out of which he has undergone 05 months and 17 days,” the Court recorded.
“To conclude, this Court would observe that 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,” it observed.
The Court directed that: “The petitioner is directed to surrender within 15 days from date, and serve his unexpired portion of sentence.”
It added: “If a court of law decides a case on the basis of misplaced sympathy... it will set a wrong precedent.”
The judgment concluded with the affirmation: “The officers who dispense justice... must be safeguarded or extended respect, it will have serious repercussions not only on the justice delivery system as a whole, but also affect the working capacity and moral strength of the judicial officers.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanju Gupta, Ms. Varsha Ahluwalia, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Deepanshu Lakra, Mr. Lakshay Tyagi, and Mr. Akshay Tyagi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State
Case Title: XXX v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4401
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 128/2024
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
[Read/Download order]
