Appearing Before Court In Drunken State Is Unpardonable: Delhi HC Convicts Lawyer For Criminal Contempt

The Delhi High Court convicted a lawyer for criminal contempt of court after he appeared intoxicated and threatened a judicial officer in court.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held that Rathod’s conduct, including the abusive language used against a lady judge, constituted contempt on the face of the court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The incident, dating back to 2015, occurred in the Karkardooma Court, where Rathod, representing an accused driver, began shouting and using foul language against the presiding Metropolitan Magistrate. An FIR was filed, leading to Rathod's incarceration for five months.

On the question whether the conduct of the Contemnor, i.e.,Respondent herein, constitutes criminal contempt, the Court said, "A perusal of the language used by the Respondent-Contemnor qua the Judicial Officer would leave no iota of doubt that it would fall in the definition of criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act. The language used by the Contemnor in fact has scandalised the Court and such conduct also leads to interference in the administration of justice. The words spoken are foul and abusive. Moreover, considering the fact that the Judicial Officer presiding the Court was a lady Judicial Officer and the manner in which the Contemnor, i.e., Respondent herein, has addressed the said Judicial Officer is completely unacceptable."

The Division Bench noted that appearing in court while intoxicated and engaging in such behaviour is entirely unacceptable and interferes with the administration of justice. "Appearing before a Court in a drunken state is also unpardonable. The same is contempt on the face of the Court. Thus, this Court has no doubt in holding that the Respondent is guilty of criminal contempt," the Bench said. 

However, considering the five months Rathod had already served in jail for the same incident, the Court did not impose any further sentence, treating the time served as sufficient punishment for the criminal contempt charge. "The Court is in fact inclined to punish the Respondent for criminal contempt. However, on these very allegations and happenings, since the Respondent has already served a sentence of over 5 months in FIR no. 0885/2015, further sentence is not imposed on the Respondent. The period already undergone by the respondent herein is held as the punishment for the present criminal contempt," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Contempt Petition. 

Cause Title: Court on its own motion v. Sanjay Rathod (Advocate) [Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 6390-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Vrinda Grover (Amicus), Sautik Banerjee, Devika Tulsiya

Respondent: Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku, Advocates Anil Kumar Varshneya, Sandeep Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment