Delhi High Court Convicts Advocate Of Criminal Contempt For Drunken Court Outburst

The Delhi High Court recently found an advocate guilty of criminal contempt for entering the Karkardooma Court in an intoxicated condition and using abusive, offensive language towards a magistrate, as well as making threats. Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma convicted advocate Sanjay Rathod for this conduct, which occurred on October 30, 2015. They emphasised that appearing in court while drunk is inexcusable and constitutes contempt of court.

“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 has scandalised the Court and such conduct also leads to interference in the administration of justice. The words spoken are foul and abusive,” the division bench said in the judgement passed on August 22.

The bench further said, “Moreover, because the Judicial Officer presiding the Court was a lady Judicial Officer and how the Contemnor addressed the said Judicial Officer is completely unacceptable.”

The division bench ruled that appearing in court while intoxicated is also inexcusable and constitutes contempt of court. Therefore, the court firmly believes that the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt. The High Court decided not to impose an additional sentence on the convict, considering he has already served five months in custody related to the case.

“The Court is 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, 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 High Court said.

On October 30, 2015, the magistrate recorded that the accused vehicle owner and his counsel, who is now the contemnor, appeared in court. They were informed that the case had been adjourned and a new date had been set. However, the counsel/contemoror began shouting in the courtroom and using abusive, offensive language immediately afterward.

Following this incident, the Metropolitan Magistrate sent a communication to the High Court on October 31, 2015, regarding the language used by the advocate. The High Court then initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the advocate. Advocate Vrinda Grover was appointed as amicus curiae in the case.