A criminal contempt case was instituted before the Delhi High Court against a practicing advocate for his alleged misconduct, levelling serious allegations against the District Court, and for usage of un-parliamentary language before an open court during the course of hearing of an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which lowered the court’s authority and resulted into an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
After perusing the reference as well as the affidavit by the contemnor advocate, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja framed a charge against the contemnor to the effect that on 03-04-2025, during the course of hearing before the District Judge, Commercial Court-13, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the advocate had raised his voice and levelled serious allegations of bias against the court by stating that it was intentionally passing orders against his client.
The charge framed against the contemnor advocate also mentioned that he shouted and used highly objectionable language to the extent of blaming all presiding officers of the court in question and said that they had only passed mechanical, biased, and adverse orders. It further included that the advocate had threatened the court by saying that if contempt proceedings were initiated against him, he would make it a personal issue with the presiding officer, and would file retaliatory complaints against the said officer.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Dismisses Khan Market Welfare Association Plea Seeking Uniform Property Tax Method
As the advocate had lowered the authority of the court in open court and had attempted to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings as well as administration of justice, the Court levelled charges of criminal contempt as per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, punishable under Section 12 of the Act, against the contemnor.
After being made understood the charges, the advocate pleaded not guilty and claimed that he would contest the charges. He also requested for the audio-video recording of the subject court proceedings to be requisitioned. Hence, the Court directed the same to be requisitioned.
The contemnor advocate was directed to file his response to the charge within four weeks. The Court directed the matter to be listed on 15-10-2026, and also directed the presence of the contemnor on the next date.
