Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court refused to reduce the sentence awarded to an advocate convicted of outraging the modesty of a sitting female judicial officer inside a courtroom. While the Court upheld the convictions and sentences awarded by the Trial and Appellate Courts, it modified the sentence only to the extent that all punishments would run concurrently, rather than consecutively. The total sentence of 2 years was thus reduced to 18 months. The Court observed:
“To take a lenient view in a case like the present, where shameful language was used against a judicial officer, would amount to doing injustice to justice.”
The petitioner was directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the remaining sentence.
Facts
On 30 October 2015, the complainant, a Metropolitan Magistrate, was presiding over her courtroom at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The petitioner, an advocate, entered the courtroom and, upon learning that his matter had been adjourned, began shouting at the presiding judge. He used abusive language, threatened her with repercussions, and refused to leave the courtroom despite being asked to do so. He further hurled an obscene, gender-specific abuse — “chadhi far kar rakh dunga” — directed at the judge.
When efforts were made to detain him for a breathalyzer test (as she suspected intoxication), the petitioner fled. An FIR was registered under Sections 186, 189, 353, 354, and 509 IPC.
After trial, he was convicted under Sections 186, 189, 228, 509, and 353 IPC. He was sentenced to a total of 2 years’ simple imprisonment, with sentences directed to run consecutively. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence and additionally imposed a compensation of ₹50,000 under the Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi ruling.
Issues
- Whether the sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate and warranted reduction to the period already undergone.
- Whether leniency should be shown considering the petitioner’s clean antecedents and personal circumstances.
- Whether institutional integrity and the dignity of a judicial officer required upholding the full sentence imposed.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner did not challenge the conviction and confined his arguments to the sentence alone.
- It was submitted that:
- The petitioner had already served over 5 months in custody.
- He was an advocate with 15 years’ standing and had clean antecedents.
- He had a family with two minor children and was remorseful for his actions.
- His conduct in prison was reported as satisfactory.
- The sentence awarded was disproportionate to the offence.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The State opposed the plea for leniency, contending that:
- The Trial Court had already taken a lenient view by awarding only 18 months for Section 509 IPC (maximum being 3 years).
- The nature of the offence — involving threats and gendered abuse against a sitting judge in a courtroom — was grave.
- A strong message needed to be sent through imposition of appropriate punishment.
Analysis of the Law
The Court underscored the importance of maintaining courtroom dignity and the sanctity of judicial institutions, especially when violated by an officer of the Court. It highlighted:
- Advocates are bound by ethical and legal duties under the Advocates Act, 1961.
- Section 509 IPC deals with words or gestures intended to outrage the modesty of a woman and carries a maximum punishment of 3 years.
- The Trial Court’s sentence was within statutory limits and reasoned in light of aggravating circumstances.
- “Misplaced sympathy” towards the petitioner could set a dangerous precedent, eroding public confidence in the justice system.
Precedent Analysis
The Appellate Court had relied on the Full Bench ruling in Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi, (277 (2021) DLT 195), which mandated compensation to victims in appropriate cases. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Surinder Singh’s case, reinforcing the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the obligation of the judiciary to uphold institutional integrity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- The petitioner’s conduct was not a momentary lapse but a serious attack on a female judge’s dignity and judicial authority.
- His professional background aggravated, rather than mitigated, the seriousness of the offence.
- The sentence awarded was within permissible limits and justified in light of the aggravating circumstances.
- However, the direction that the sentences run consecutively (adding up to 2 years) was found to be excessive.
“The judicial process is not a solitary act but is a collaborative exercise between the Bench and the Bar… Here, that very partnership was dishonoured.”
Conclusion
The High Court refused to reduce the actual term of imprisonment and affirmed the importance of protecting female judicial officers from institutional disrespect and gendered misconduct. However, the Court modified the sentence to the extent that all sentences shall run concurrently.
“When the dignity of any judicial officer is 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.”
Implications
- Reinforces judicial dignity as non-negotiable, especially in cases involving abuse within courtrooms.
- Sends a strong message to members of the Bar about their elevated responsibilities.
- Acknowledges systemic gendered abuse and seeks to protect women in positions of legal authority.
- Clarifies the scope of concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing in cases with multiple convictions.