Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held a drunk lawyer guilty of contempt of court noting that “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 bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held. 

A traffic challan led to the filing of this contempt petition. When notice was issued by the Trial Court to the owner and driver of the vehicle, they approached the court with their lawyer. The contempt petition was subsequently filed against the said lawyer. When the Trial Court questioned the lawyer regarding his details, he replied rudely. 

The record further mentioned that the advocate started making a nuisance in the court by shouting to such an extent that it became impossible to write orders and the court work had to be stopped. It was again made clear that the matter had already been adjourned for 31-10-2015.

The record mentioned that it was evident from the smell of the advocate’s breath that he was drunk and thus, he was asked to leave the court. On this, the advocate became even more aggressive and threatened the Presiding Judicial Officer once again. His use of filthy and abusive language in open court outraged the modesty of the female officer and insulted the dignity of the court.

Upon being asked for his particulars and to stop for the breath test, the advocate ran from the court. Further, the Trial Court noted that the President of the Bar Association, along with 3 advocates, came to his chamber and requested to solve the matter without any formal complaint and to settle by way of social method.

The Trial Court held the advocate guilty and convicted him. However, the advocate challenged the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the Appellate Court while modifying the order on sentence by including a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the advocate.

The court, upon reviewing the language used by the Contemnor toward the Judicial Officer, noted that it fell within the definition of criminal contempt as outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act. The court remarked that the language used by the Contemnor had indeed scandalized the Court and interfered with the administration of justice. The words spoken were foul and abusive.

Furthermore, the court held that the conduct of the contemnor was unacceptable considering that the  Judicial Officer was a female. Appearing before a Court in a drunken state was also deemed unpardonable, constituting contempt in the presence of the Court. Therefore, this Court had no hesitation in holding the Contemnor guilty of criminal contempt.

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion v Sanjay Rathod (Advocate)