Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner (‘accused’) challenging the order on sentence dated 28-9-2019 and praying for leniency, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, stated that it was a matter of deep concern that, at times, even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse. The Court stated that the seat of a judicial officer had its own dignity and was sacrosanct for members of the community who appeared before her. If such an officer was not able to get adequate justice for herself, it might leave a scar or hurt dignity that could not be permitted.
Thus, the Court stated that there was no ground to take any lenient view. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned judgment and orders on sentence, with the modification that the sentences should run concurrently and not consecutively.
Background
The complainant, Ms. ‘X’ was serving as a Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi and on 30-10-2015, at around 3:50 pm, she was presiding over her courtroom. During that time, the accused, an advocate by profession was representing the owner of vehicle, 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, the accused suddenly began shouting in open court. He allegedly used abusive and disrespectful language towards the presiding judge. Instead of calming down, the accused 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 accused allegedly charged towards the dais and began threatening her. The accused further warned her that he would be moving an application to transfer the case.
Deeply shaken by the incident, Ms. ‘X’ submitted a formal complaint with the police. Accordingly, the FIR was registered for commission of offence under Sections 186/189/353/354/509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Later, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), where she reiterated her version of events. She recalled feeling insulted, humiliated, and being moved to tears, prompting her to retire to her chamber while she was dictating the order to initiate the complaint.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-1, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), vide judgment dated 28-9-2019 held the accused guilty for commission of offence under Sections 186/189/228/509/353 of IPC, whereas acquitted him for offence under Sections 188/354-A of IPC.
The issue for consideration before the present Court was whether the gravity of the accused’s conduct, i.e. outraging the modesty of a sitting female Judicial Officer in the sanctum of a courtroom, demands that the sentence awarded to the accused be upheld.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in the present case, the injustice was not directed at a distant litigant or an unknown complainant. It was inflicted upon a sitting female Judicial Officer, within her own courtroom, a space that should embody respect, order, and the majesty of law. Therefore, the present case was not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself, where a judge, who symbolizes the impartial voice of the law, became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.
The Court stated that it was a matter of deep concern that, at times, even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse. The intersection of gender, authority, and power was nowhere more complex than in a courtroom. When a male advocate uses his position to violate the dignity of a female judicial officer, the issue was no longer of an individual judicial officer being subjected to misconduct, it becomes a reflection of the persistent challenge faced by women even in institutions which have been entrusted with the duty of upholding justice for all. When a woman who occupies a seat of authority, especially in the judiciary, was subjected to acts that compromise her dignity, it threatens to undo years of progress.
The Court observed that in the present case, the conduct in question was disproportionate to the dignity of a woman seated on the dias, entrusted with the solemn duty of dispensing justice. To use language meant to outrage her modesty, within the courtroom, was not merely inappropriate, it was deeply offensive.
The Court noted that the accused was awarded a sentence of 18 months for the offence under Section 509 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 189 of IPC, and an additional three months for the offence under Section 353 of IPC. These sentences were directed to run consecutively, thereby resulting in a total sentence of two years. Thus, the Court stated that there existed no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of concurrent running of sentences to the accused.
Accordingly, the Court modified the order on sentence to the limited extent that all the sentences awarded to the accused shall run concurrently, and not consecutively. Consequently, the total sentence to be undergone by the accused should be confined to 18 months, out of which he had already undergone 5 months and 17 days.
The Court concluded that to take a lenient view in case like the present case, where shameful language was used against a judicial officer, would amount to doing injustice to justice. The seat of a judicial officer had its own dignity and is sacrosanct for members of the community who appear before her. If such an officer was not able to get adequate justice for herself, it might leave a scar or hurt dignity that could not be permitted. The Court stated that when the dignity of any judicial officer was torn by way of use of filthy words proved beyond reasonable doubt, the law must act as the thread that would mend and restore it.
Thus, the Court stated that there was no ground to take any lenient view. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned judgment and orders on sentence, with the modification that the sentences should run concurrently and not consecutively.
[Sanjay Rathore v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.REV.P. 128 of 2024, decided on 26-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sanju Gupta, Varsha Ahluwalia, Lalit Kumar Sharma, Deepanshu Lakra, Lakshay Tyagi and Akshay Tyagi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Rajkumar, APP for the State.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
