2026 Supreme(Mad) 1221

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
S. Rajmohan - Petitioner
Versus 
The Judicial Magistrate No.V - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, 4711 of 2026, Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1656, 1658, 1761, 1762, 1774 to 1777 of 2026 Crl.O.P(MD) No.1514 of 2026
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Summary proceedings under Section 384 BNSS for courtroom misconduct valid if cognizance before rising of Court; inherent powers not to quash show cause notices where allegations disclose offence prima facie and facts disputed; advocates must uphold Court dignity, no collective interference justified.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 384, 385, 387, 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 267 - Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 30 - Offence of intentional insult or interruption to public servant (judicial officer) committed in view or presence of Court - Summary proceedings under Section 384 BNSS maintainable if cognizance taken before rising of Court on same day - 'Rising of Court' distinguished from 'court working hours'; Court may continue sitting beyond scheduled hours - Proceedings not vitiated if show cause notice issued next day where cognizance taken same day - No mandatory transfer to another Magistrate under Section 385 unless Court deems fit - Use of term 'offenders' in proceedings reflects prima facie view, not predetermination of guilt - Proceedings challenging show cause notices premature; inherent powers under Section 528 not to be exercised to quash at threshold where allegations disclose ingredients of offence and disputed facts exist including CCTV evidence. (Paras 62-77, 99-103)

(B) Legal Profession - Duties of advocates as officers of Court - Must conduct with dignity, respect, restraint; no right to interrupt, overawe, or collectively pressure Court even as office bearers - Privilege of audience subject to Court discipline - In summary proceedings for courtroom misconduct, personal appearance may be insisted upon; representation through counsel regulable by Court - Bar and Bench partners in justice delivery; harmony through mutual discipline, not indulgence of misconduct. (Paras 53-61, 85-91, 104-106)

(C) Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - High Court not to evaluate evidence, resolve disputed facts, or conduct mini-trial under inherent jurisdiction; interference only for manifest illegality or abuse of process - Allegations of interference, insult during remand hearing, if established, attract penal provision; opportunity to defend before Magistrate. (Paras 67-69, 99-102)

Facts of the case:
Batch of petitions by practising advocates including office bearers challenging proceedings under Section 384 BNSS for alleged interruption, collective intervention, and insult during remand hearing on 20.01.2026 following petition alleging wrongful detention previous evening - Magistrate took cognizance same day before rising of Court, issued show cause notices next day; later returned vakalaths insisting personal appearance - CCTV footage preserved; counter affidavit detailed sequence including shouting post-chambers direction and open Court disruptions.

Findings of Court:
Proceedings under Section 384 BNSS validly initiated; not without jurisdiction; allegations prima facie disclose offence under Section 267 BNS; no predetermination or bias vitiating process; personal appearance order not quashable at this stage; inherent jurisdiction not exercisable to short-circuit statutory forum.

Issues: (i) Jurisdiction under Section 384 BNSS re timing of cognizance; (ii) Sufficiency of allegations for Section 267 BNS; (iii) Predetermination/bias; (iv) Refusal of vakalaths/personal appearance; (v) Exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash show cause stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where offence of courtroom insult/interruption committed in judicial officer's presence, summary proceedings sustainable if cognizance before rising of Court; quashing inappropriate at notice stage amid disputed facts and CCTV evidence; advocates' duties prioritize Court dignity over collective pressure; proceedings protect institutional integrity.

Result: Criminal Original Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. batch petitions challenge magistrate's proceedings under bnss. (Para 1 , 2)
2. magistrate alleges advocates interrupted court proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. petitioners argue vagueness, no jurisdiction, seek quashment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. magistrate defends proceedings as institutional protection. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. petitioners challenge procedural violations and bias. (Para 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. respondent asserts valid jurisdiction and prematurity. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
7. advocates duty-bound as officers of court. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
8. section 384 bnss enables summary contempt proceedings. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
9. allegations sufficient for prima facie section 267 case. (Para 67 , 69)
10. cognizance valid before court rising. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
11. section 385 discretionary, not mandatory. (Para 75 , 76 , 77)
12. prima facie opinion not predetermination. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
13. judicial officer may file counter affidavit. (Para 83 , 84)
14. court regulates representation in summary proceedings. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91)
15. institutional integrity demands curbing disruptions. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98)
16. no grounds for quashing at show cause stage. (Para 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103)
17. petitions dismissed; proceed per bnss. (Para 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110)

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Prologue:

“If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman,” observed Margaret Thatcher, a remark that resonates with particular force in the present context.

In the case at hand, this Court is witness to a young judicial officer who, unmindful of the age, stature, or experience of the members of the Bar, chose not the path of convenience, but that of conviction. Faced with a charged atmosphere and competing pressures, she did not yield to expediency, nor retreat into silence, but acted with resolute determination to uphold the dignity and authority of the institution she represents. What may be perceived by some as stubbornness, this Court views as principled firmness, an essential attribute in the discharge of judicial duty.

The strength of the justice delivery system does not lie merely in statutes and precedents, but in the character of those entrusted with their application. It is through such unwavering commitment, particularly by those at the very threshold of their judicial journey, that institutional integrity is preserved and public confidence is sustained.

Crux of the case:

These batch of Criminal Original Petitions, though presented by different petitioners, arise out of one common episode, one common set of proceedings, and one common institutional question. The petitioners are all practising Advocates and, in four of the cases, office bearers or members of a Bar Association at Madurai. They have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the proceedings in M.C.No.07 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, together with the consequential show cause notices issued under Section 384 BNSS, 2023 , and, in the connected petition of Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4711 of 2026, the further order dated 11.02.2026 returning the vakalaths, declining representation through counsel, and directing personal appearance.

2. Since the foundation of all the petitions is the very same occurrence and since the rival submissions also substantially overlap, all these matters are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The controversy is not a mere private quarrel between an individual judicial officer and certain members of the Bar. Nor can it be reduced to a passing misunderstanding. At its heart lies a question of great institutional significance: to what extent can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document