Interfering With Advocate Commissioners' Work Is Interference in Administration of Justice; Warrants Punishment for Criminal Contempt: Delhi High Court - 2025-08-22

Delhi High Court Convicts 12 for “Brazen Interference” in Attack on Advocate Commissioners

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has held 12 individuals guilty of criminal contempt for their involvement in a violent mob attack on court-appointed Advocate Commissioners in Kolkata in 2015. A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that interfering with the work of Advocate Commissioners is a direct interference in the administration of justice that must be "dealt with severely" to uphold the majesty of law.

The Court sentenced the 12 contemnors, including shop proprietors and their attendants, to one day of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 each.

---

Background of the Case: A Commission Turns Violent

The contempt proceedings originated from a trademark infringement suit filed by Samsung Electronics Company Limited in 2014. Samsung alleged that numerous vendors in Kolkata's Khidderpore area were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademark.

On December 23, 2014, the High Court granted an injunction and appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners to visit the identified shops, seize the counterfeit goods, and prepare an inventory.

On January 13, 2015, when the commissioners, assisted by Kolkata Police, attempted to execute the court's order, they were met with a pre-meditated and violent mob attack. Advocate Commissioner Shravan Sahary was brutally assaulted, losing two front teeth and sustaining severe injuries. Several other commissioners and police personnel were also manhandled, beaten with rods and hockey sticks, and forced to flee the scene, abandoning their court-mandated task.

Following a mentioning by Mr. Sahary, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the incident, describing it as a "brazen interference in the administration of justice," and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the shop owners and others identified by the police investigation.

---

Arguments of the Parties

The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Varun Goswami , argued that the attack was a "concerted and group effort" designed to thwart the wheels of justice by instilling fear in the Advocate Commissioners.

The Respondents/Contemnors , while tendering unconditional apologies, largely pleaded innocence. Many claimed they were not present at their shops, were out of town, or were simply bystanders. Some argued they were uneducated and initially mistook the commissioners for "impersonators." Those identified as attackers but not shop owners claimed they were daily wage workers like cycle repairmen, bus conductors, or porters with no connection to the events.

---

Court’s Analysis: Upholding the Majesty of Law

The High Court underscored the purpose of contempt jurisdiction, which is "to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law." Citing precedents like Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj , the Bench reiterated that proceedings are quasi-criminal and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the disobedience was "wilful," meaning intentional, conscious, and calculated.

The Court distinguished between those who may have been mere bystanders and those who actively participated in obstructing the commission. It noted that without knowledge that their actions were interfering with a court order, a person cannot be held liable for criminal contempt. Accordingly, the Court discharged the notices against several respondents who were labourers or street hawkers with no direct connection to the shops, stating there was no material to prove they intended to interfere with the administration of justice.

However, for the shop owners and their identified employees, the Court rejected their pleas of alibi and innocence. It concluded:

"The affidavits placed on record clearly demonstrate that [they] were in the knowledge of the orders of this Court and they only wanted the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Court to fail in the task entrusted to them... a mob was incited by the shopkeepers so that they could teach the Advocate Commissioners a lesson and scare them away."

The judgment emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating:

"If such of those persons who have interfered with the administration of justice are not dealt with heavy hands, the majesty of law will come down in the eyes of ordinary citizens which will have a deleterious effect on the fabric of the society."

---

Final Verdict

The Court found 12 individuals, including the proprietors and attendants of M/s Obsession Naaz, M/s Renu Benu Stores, M/s Imaxx Mobile Zone, M/s Alfa Int., M/s Flashing Tech, and M/s Super Traders, guilty of criminal contempt.

While acknowledging their unconditional apologies, the Court deemed the violent nature of the attack, which resulted in serious injuries to officers of the court and police, warranted punishment. The 12 contemnors were sentenced to one day of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 each. The criminal cases registered against the accused under the Indian Penal Code will proceed independently.