The Delhi High Court held an advocate guilty of contempt of court for appearing intoxicated and for using filthy and abusive language towards the presiding officer of the court. The Division Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held that Adv. Sanjay  Rathod’s conduct, including the derogatory language used against a lady judge, was lowering the dignity of the court and constituted contempt on the face of the court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

A background of the instant case is that on October 15, 2015, a traffic challan/complaint was received by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (traffic), North-West Karkadooma Court. After observing that prima facie offences were made out, summons were issued to the driver and the owner of the vehicle. The matter that was kept for hearing on October 30, 2015, was adjourned by a day to October 31, 2015.

Adv. Sanjay Rathod appearing for the owner of the vehicle, was apprised about the adjournment of the matter to the next day; thereupon, he started shouting and using filthy language against the Presiding judicial officer in the open court.Taking serious note of the uncivil behaviour of the advocate, the court asked for his details to be   furnished but the advocate continued to be discourteous, creating nuisance in the court by his ill-mannered utterances. It was reported by the court that the counsel, “also started thumping on table before dias" besides threatening the court with words such as "abhi matter transfer karo CMM ko, kar order abhi".

The court stated that "it is evident from smell of breath of counsel during shouting that he is in a drunken state, therefore, I have asked the counsel to leave the court as he is completely drunk. The counsel has used so  filthy and abusive language  against the   presiding officer  in the open court that it has insulted and outraged the modesty of female judicial officer and has also insulted the dignity of the court. The counsel was asked to give a breath test but he ran away from the court."

The copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, NE/KKD courts, Delhi, and the High Court of Delhi, as well as to the bar councils of India for necessary intimation action along with a separate complaint to the police.  An FIR was registered under Sections 186/189/188/288/354-A/509/353 IPC in PS Farsh Bazar on the complaint of the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic). Subsequently, the investigation was completed and  chargesheet was filed. 

The Trial Court, in its judgement dated September 28, 2019, held convict Sanjay Rathod guilty of all the offences but acquitted him under Sections 188 and 354A, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine. The advocate challenged the aforesaid judgement and order, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 20-04-2023 and while modifying the order, a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the respondent was added.

On the last date of hearing, 26th July 2024, a legal issue was raised by Mr. Tiku, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Contemnor, herein the Respondent, that the present contempt petition cannot continue in view of the proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

On the legal issue whether the conduct of the Contemnor respondent constitutes criminal contempt, raised by the Counsel appearing for the Contemnor, the court held that, ''A perusal of the language used by the Respondent-Contemnor qua the Judicial Officer would leave no iota of doubt that it would fall in the definition of criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act. The language used by the Contemnor in fact has scandalised the Court and such conduct also leads to interference in the administration of justice. The words spoken are foul and abusive. Moreover, considering the fact that the Judicial Officer presiding the Court was a lady Judicial Officer and the manner in which the Contemnor, i.e., Respondent herein, has addressed the said Judicial Officer is completely unacceptable. Appearing before a court in a drunken state is also unpardonable.''

However, the court further stated that ''since the respondent has already served a sentence of over 5 months, further sentence is not imposed on the respondent. The period already undergone by the respondent herein is held as the punishment for the present criminal contempt.''

Advocates for Petitioner: Adv. Vrinda Grover (Amicus), Adv. Sautik Banerjee, Adv. Devika Tulsiyan

Advocates for Respondent: Sr. Adv. Rakesh Tiku, Adv. Anil Kumar Varshneya, Adv. Sandeep Kumar

Case Details: Court on its own motion v. Sanjay Rathod, Cont. Cas. (CRL) 8 of 2015