JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................2

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS................................................................................8

Issue before the Court .................................................................................................. 8

The Conduct of the Petitioner..................................................................................... 9

Injustice to the Justice................................................................................................. 10

The Vulnerabilities of Women in Power and the Gendered Nature of Abuse.. 11

Women Judicial Officers and the Necessity of Institutional Protection ............. 12

Advocates’ Duties and the Sanctity of Courtroom Conduct ................................ 13

The Plea for Leniency on Ground of Sentence being Disproportionate............ 14

Justice Must Speak – Loudly and Clearly ................................................................. 16

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................17

INTRODUCTION

1. This case narrates a deeply disturbing incident. It presents shocking conduct of an Advocate – conduct which is completely unacceptable. Even the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though sought leniency for the petitioner and a reduction in the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, he did not attempt to justify or defend the behaviour of the accused.

2. Thus, although the petitioner has not assailed his conviction itself, this Court finds it necessary – especially in light of the plea for a lesser sentence – to narrate the incident in question, as the incident itself and its potential impact on the entire adjudicatory system of the Trial Courts will form the backdrop against which this Court considers the plea for leniency.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. At the time of the incident, the complainant Ms. ‘X’ was serving as a Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi. On 30.10.2015, at around 3:50 PM, she was presiding over her courtroom on the 6th floor of the Karkardooma Courts Complex (North-East District). Present in the courtroom were Naib Court Sh. Pawan Kumar, court staff members Sh. Neeraj Kumar and Sh. Sumit Kumar, one Advocate Sh. Chittranjan Dass, Investigating Officers Sh. Rajpal Singh from P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi and ASI Sh. Mahendra Kumar from P.S. Usmanpur, Delhi, along with Sh. Arun Kumar (victim in FIR No. 1124/2015), and a convict in a challan matter related to vehicle no. DL1RQ3967. At this time, the present petitioner Sanjay Rathore (Enrolment No. D/****/09), an Advocate by profession and representing the owner of vehicle no. UP14CT0689 entered the courtroom with a colleague, and enquired with the Reader about the status of their challan case. Upon being informed that the case had already been adjourned to 31.10.2015, the petitioner suddenly began shouting in open court. He allegedly used abusive and disrespectful language towards the presiding judge Ms. ‘X’, and said “aise kar dia adjourn matter, aise kese date de di, main keh rha hun, abhi lo matter, order karo abhi.” When Ms. ‘X’ asked him about his vakalatnama, the petitioner arrogantly responded, “dekh lo lga hai challan ke sath mein, usi mein mera naam hai.” His name, indeed, appeared on the vakalatnama attached with the challan. However, instead of calming down, the petitioner became more aggressive. He began shouting louder, creating a nuisance that forced Ms. ‘X’ to pause the court proceedings. When she reiterated that the matter had already been adjourned, the petitioner allegedly charged towards the dais and began threatening her, stating, “aisa karo matter transfer kar do CMM ko, order karo abhi, aise kaise adjourn kar diya matter.” He further warned her that he would be moving an application to