In a stern message upholding respect for judicial officers, the Supreme Court came down heavily on Nitin Bansal, accused of threatening a woman lawyer—appointed as a Court Commissioner—with a pistol during commission proceedings.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Bansal to surrender before jail authorities by November 6, making it clear that his plea against the Delhi High Court’s jail sentence would not be considered until then. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 11.

The bench did not mince words and sharply criticized Bansal's behavior, implying that he had, so far, been let off too lightly by the High Court. Justice Kant was particularly vocal, noting that the Local Commissioner had displayed notable magnanimity in her complaint and that, given the circumstances, she might have pursued graver charges.

The judges underscored the seriousness of the incident, especially as it unfolded in the presence of police officials—stating that the situation could have escalated further if not for police intervention, with the potential for physical harm to the Commissioner.

Contentions & Court’s Counter:

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing Bansal, contested the version of events, pointing out the presence of several police personnel at the scene, and asserting that no intimidation could have possibly occurred. He disputed the charge that a real firearm was involved, maintaining that it was merely an air gun or toy gun lying on the table from the outset.

Despite these attempts to mitigate the seriousness of the incident, Justice Kant disagreed, noting that the petition showed no regret and merely tried to accuse the Local Commissioner for honestly describing the events.

The judge commented, “Despite committing all this kind of nonsense, for which the High Court should really have taken some really harsh action, he has been allowed to go so scot-free...he has not even a single word of repentance in the entire petition. He is still trying to accuse the Local Commissioner. Why this young lady would say [falsely]? [This person] telling lies in open court...found to have misled the Court and then he files an appeal! Why should we not enhance the sentence?”

Farasat asserted that the so-called pistol was not wielded by his client but found on a table; however, Justice Bagchi responded, “What do you mean by a 'slash' toy gun? That is intentional. It should not have been there. He should be in jail. Not only did he intimidate an officer of the Court, a lady officer who goes as a special officer, in the proceedings he tries to make an alternate affidavit 'air gun/toy gun'? That's noted by the judge”.

The bench firmly rejected any claim that these arguments made Bansal’s actions less serious. Justice Kant also questioned the claim about a speech problem and stressed that the Local Commissioner’s statements were trustworthy.

Ultimately, the bench made its expectations clear: “Go surrender, then we will see”. The formal order read, “No ground to entertain the interim prayer. Let the petitioner first surrender before jail authorities on November 6”.

Facts:

This controversy began with suo motu contempt proceedings in the Delhi High Court, following allegations that Bansal’s father had violated a judicial restraint concerning the handling of 30,000 tons of industrial coal.

After contentions of contempt were raised, a woman attorney was appointed as Local Commissioner and visited the premises with police escort. According to her report, Bansal was entirely uncooperative, displayed threatening behavior by placing a pistol on the table in her presence, and thereby attempted to obstruct the commission’s execution.

The weapon, suspected of being unlicensed, was subsequently confiscated by police. In the ensuing contempt hearings, Bansal protested that the gun was merely a toy, but upon examination, it turned out to be a real firearm.

Reflecting on this, the High Court observed: “Thus, clearly, the plea of the Contemnor/ Respondent was a false, misleading plea and was taken only to pull wool over the eyes of the Court, with the hope that the Court would never call for the physical gun itself.” The bench further described the Local Commissioner as an extension of the Court, stating that Bansal’s persistent law-breaking and lack of remorse warranted the rejection of his apology.

As the judgment put it, “Yet, the Contemnor shows no remorse. The unconditional apology tendered by the Contemnor is nothing but a lip service. Thus, owing to the deliberate obstruction by the Contemnor, this Court does not find it appropriate to accept the apology tendered.”

The High Court underlined that Bansal’s placement of the gun was a deliberate act aimed at impeding the Commissioner’s duties, noting, “Such conduct on the part of the Contemnor reflects a deliberate attempt with evil motive towards the interference in the administration of justice, and therefore, contemnor is liable to be punished for criminal contempt”.

Case Detail: NITIN BANSAL Versus THE STATE OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 17468/2025