Read Time: 04 minutes
Per the trial court’s order, the advocate disrupted the examination of a prosecution witness, the father of the victim, by engaging in an argument with the court in a rash and condescending manner. He pointed his finger at the court and questioned its judicial wisdom when his objection was overruled. The advocate made statements such as, ‘You tell me the law’, and ‘Why don’t you convict the accused now itself’. His behavior disturbed the peaceful atmosphere of the courtroom and persisted despite repeated warnings to maintain decorum.
The Delhi High Court, recently, addressed a contempt petition filed against a lawyer who indulged in ‘unnecessary aggressive behaviour’. As a remedial measure, the high court directed the advocate to provide pro bono legal services to at least two accused or victims.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “There can be no doubt unnecessary aggression and raising of voice in Court which demonstrates disrespect cannot be tolerated. Lawyers ought to maintain decorum in the court room”.
The matter arose from an order dated 23rd November 2024, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge (SC POCSO) of the South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The lower court recorded that the respondent advocate misbehaved, raised his voice, and displayed unnecessary aggression in the courtroom.
The advocate’s conduct was witnessed by the court staff, the substitute Additional Public Prosecutor, and the proxy counsel for the complainant. Even after withdrawing his Vakalatnama during the cross-examination of the witness, he continued to sit in the courtroom with two to three associates, creating an intimidating atmosphere. Upon leaving, he declared his intent to file a complaint against the presiding judge. The court deemed his actions inappropriate and forwarded the matter to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East District, and the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court for necessary action.
Subsequently, the high court issued a notice to the advocate, who appeared before the court and tendered an unconditional apology. He submitted that he had practiced law for over 20 years without any previous incidents of misconduct. The high court emphasized that aggression and disrespect in court proceedings were unacceptable and that lawyers were expected to uphold courtroom decorum.
Considering the advocate’s long-standing legal practice and his apology, the high court decided to accept his expression of remorse. However, as a remedial measure, the court directed him to provide pro bono legal services to at least two accused or victims.
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion v Shivashish Gunwal Advocate (2025:DHC:1657-DB)
Please Login or Register
