Delhi HC issued a show cause notice to a lawyer, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for persistently interrupting court proceedings despite repeated warnings.

Justice Girish Kathpalia was presiding over a case filed by petitioner Shalini Singh, represented by Advocate Ravi Kumar, in a plea against United Insurance Company (UIC) Limited. In her application, Singh sought court directions to restrict the General Manager (HR) of UIC from managing the documentary evidence repository, as well as overseeing appointments, promotions, postings, transfers, or case files, due to alleged malpractice and corruption.

During the proceedings, Advocate Ravi Kumar, representing petitioner Shalini Singh, repeatedly interrupted the court, compelling Justice Girish Kathpalia to move to chambers to complete dictating the order.

 “The counsel for petitioner is not permitting me to dictate this order and continues interrupting. As such, the order shall be passed in chamber”

Although the court posed several questions about the case, the lawyer responded with disruptions instead of addressing these inquiries, escalating the disturbance to the point that the judge had to halt open-court dictation. Despite previous warnings, Advocate Kumar’s conduct persisted, leading the court to note that such interference in court proceedings amounts to contempt.

Expressing displeasure over the conduct of Advocate Kumar, Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the lawyer’s persistent interruption prevented him from dictating the order in open court, ultimately compelling him to issue the order in chamber.

"At request of counsel for petitioner, it is made clear that this application is not being dismissed today, but since he continues interrupting, further dictation has to be in the chamber,” the court added.

 Similarly, Justice Kathpalia stated,

“I feel constrained to contemplate appropriate action. Therefore, opportunity is granted to learned counsel for petitioner to address on the next date as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Rest of the order shall be dictated inside the chamber.”

When Justice Kathpalia questioned why the allegation that the respondents had paid over Rs. 2 crores to the opposing counsel should not be considered scandalous and irrelevant, the petitioner’s counsel failed to address the queries.

Instead, the court noted that the lawyer caused a disturbance, prompting the judge to halt dictation and move the hearing to chambers.

The court ultimately concluded that “On the above aspects, the counsel for petitioner is granted opportunity to address further arguments on 09.01.2025 as already fixed”.

Case Title: Mrs. Shalini Singh v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors., Cm Appl. 64505/2024 In + W.P.(C) 3514/2019

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Kumar