‘Injustice Done to Justice Itself’: Delhi HC Rejects Leniency Plea of Lawyer Who Abused Female Judge

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the conviction of advocate Sanjay Rathore for using abusive language towards a female judge in a challan matter, calling the case where 'injustice was done to justice itself.'

While rejecting the plea for leniency, a bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the female presiding officer was only discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice but was subjected to misconduct, threats, and humiliation by someone who, as an advocate, was duty-bound to uphold the dignity of the court.

"The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over Court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, in this Court‟s opinion, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity," the court held.

Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by advocate Sanjay Rathore, seeking leniency in sentencing for offences under Sections 186, 189, 353, 354, and 509 of the IPC.

The case arose after advocate Sanjay Rathore entered the courtroom presided over by a Metropolitan Magistrate and began shouting upon learning that his challan matter had been adjourned.

He allegedly used abusive and disrespectful language towards the presiding female judge and said “aise kar dia adjourn matter, aise kese date de di, main keh rha hun, abhi lo matter, order karo abhi.” When the female judge asked him about his vakalatnama, the petitioner arrogantly responded, “dekh lo lga hai challan ke sath mein, usi mein mera naam hai.”

Based on the advocate’s behaviour, the female judge suspected that he was under the influence of alcohol. He then allegedly uttered an extremely offensive and vulgar remark towards the judge, stating: "chadhi far kar rakh dunga.”

Following this, the complainant Metropolitan Magistrate filed an FIR, and the Trial Court convicted the advocate under various sections of the IPC.

During the proceedings, Advocate Sanju Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, confined his submissions only to the point of conviction. He prayed for leniency and contended that the petitioner had already remained in judicial custody for about 05 months and 17 days, out of the total sentence of 02 years awarded to him.

Opposing the plea, APP Rajkumar, appearing for the State, argued that the Trial Court had already taken a lenient view by awarding a sentence of 18 months instead of the maximum sentence of 3 years for the offence under Section 509 IPC, and a sentence of 3 months instead of the maximum sentence of 2 years for the offence under Section 353 IPC.

After weighing the contentions of both sides, the Court upheld the conviction with the modification that the sentences shall run concurrently, not consecutively.

Highlighting the vulnerabilities faced by women in power and the gendered nature of abuse, the Court said that even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse. It added that when a female judge becomes the target of personal indignity and humiliation by an officer of the court, it reflects not only a personal wrong but also the systemic vulnerability women continue to face, even at the highest echelons of legal authority.

"If those placed in the system to uphold justice are made to feel unsafe, disrespected, or helpless, the message that would resonate across the legal and social ecosystem would be deeply regressive. When a female judge is targeted in a manner that outrages her modesty or challenges her authority, it not only impacts her personally but also repositions her, symbolically and practically, back into the category of the vulnerable. This is not just an act against an individual; it is an act against institutional integrity," the court ruled.

Stressing that the present case reflects a mindset wherein even women in empowered roles are not immune from humiliation or indignity, the Court held that it is important to take such incidents seriously and not treat them as isolated or trivial, as they influence how the judiciary is perceived—and more importantly, how women perceive their place within it.

"When the dignity of any judicial officer is torn by way of use of filthy words proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the law must act as the thread that would mend and restore it," the court concluded.

Case Title: SANJAY RATHORE versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) AND ANR