I must say this most affront: Even if I myself who is a lawyer in Meerut Bar Association ever dare to misbehave in any manner with a woman Judge or a woman lawyer or to say the very least even a common woman at any point of time, I must definitely without fail be made to undergo the most strictest punishment, no matter how many excuses I may cough out because there can be just no gainsaying that the dignity and decorum of a woman judge or a woman lawyer or even a common woman stands paramount and cannot be allowed to be compromised under any circumstances! Of course, when a men dares to ever misbehave with any woman not just a woman judge alone, he must be without fail made to face the strictest consequences for it. But there must be first a thorough probe as to whether the men misbehaved in reality or not and conviction only on mere allegation cannot be ever justified under any circumstances. But if in front of everyone, any advocate or any men ever dares to misbehaves with any woman whether Judge or anyone else, the long arms of the law must not spare the men sticking to the time-tested dictum that, “Be you ever so high, the law stands above you.” There can be absolutely just no denying or disputing it!
It is definitely in the fitness of things that while sending a very strong, loud and clear message on no compromise with women’s dignity under any circumstances, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sanjay Rathore Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) And Anr. in SLP(Crl) No. 8930/2025 that was pronounced most recently on June 10, 2025 has refused to reduce the 18-month sentence of a lawyer who was convicted for using indecent and abusive language against a woman judicial officer during court proceedings. It is worth paying rapt attention here that while rejecting firmly the appeal against conviction by Delhi High Court that had been filed by advocate – Sanjay Rathore, the Bench of Apex Court hastened to add in no uncertain terms while maintaining unequivocally that, “They (woman judges) won’t be able to function if someone like him gets away…the High Court is right.” Absolutely right!
It cannot be taken lightly that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan minced just no words to hold emphatically that, “…today, majority of our officers in Delhi are women, are lady officers…They will not be able to function in case someone can get away with this sort of a statement.” We thus see that the Apex Court held that the judiciary cannot compromise when it comes to the safety and dignity of women judges while refusing to interfere with the conviction and 18 month jail sentence of Sanjay Rathore who is a Delhi-based lawyer who verbally abused and threatened a woman judicial officer in court.
It may be recalled that earlier we had seen that a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Dr Swarana Kanta Sharma was most unsparing and forthright in underscoring and holding unambiguously that, “The robe of an advocate is not just a symbol of learning, but of character. Therefore, every word uttered, every act performed in a courtroom, must reflect the solemnity of the profession. When an advocate, who is duty-bound to uphold the law, chooses instead to degrade and demean a judicial officer, he not only fails his professional oath but betrays the justice system itself.” There can be absolutely just no denying or disputing it!
To recapitulate, in 2015, while a Metropolitan Magistrate was presiding over court proceedings at the Karkardooma Court Complex, the petitioner entered the courtroom and was informed by the Court that his matter had already been adjourned. He immediately lost his temper and then began shouting, used abusive and disrespectful language, and objected to the adjournment. It was alleged that he approached the dais, raised his voice and interrupted court proceedings by issuing threats, including “aisa karo matter transfer kar do CMM ko, order aro abhi,” and “mein kal khud hi jaunga High Court mein dekhta hun tumhe abhi.”
What came as a last nail in the coffin was the most unparliamentary sexually offensive expression which is most highly derogatory and most strongly condemnable stating that, “Chadhi far kar rakh dunga.” It must be disclosed here that the matter was reported to the police, and an FIR was registered under various provisions of the IPC. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 186, 189, 188, 228, 354A, 509, and 353 IPC.
To put things in perspective, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Dr Swarana Kanta Sharma of Delhi High Court while elaborating on factual background envisages in para 3 of judgment that, “At the time of the incident, the complainant Ms. ‘X’ was serving as a Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi. On 30.10.2015, at around 3:50 PM, she was presiding over her courtroom on the 6th floor of the Karkardooma Courts Complex (North-East District). Present in the courtroom were Naib Court Sh. Pawan Kumar, court staff members Sh. Neeraj Kumar and Sh. Sumit Kumar, one Advocate Sh. Chittranjan Dass, Investigating Officers Sh. Rajpal Singh from P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi and ASI Sh. Mahendra Kumar from P.S. Usmanpur, Delhi, along with Sh. Arun Kumar (victim in FIR No. 1124/2015), and a convict in a challan matter related to vehicle no. DL1RQ3967. At this time, the present petitioner Sanjay Rathore (Enrolment No. D/****/09), an Advocate by profession and representing the owner of vehicle no. UP14CT0689 entered the courtroom with a colleague, and enquired with the Reader about the status of their challan case. Upon being informed that the case had already been adjourned to 31.10.2015, the petitioner suddenly began shouting in open court. He allegedly used abusive and disrespectful language towards the presiding judge Ms. ‘X’, and said “aise kar dia adjourn matter, aise kese date de di, main keh rha hun, abhi lo matter, order karo abhi.” When Ms. ‘X’ asked him about his vakalatnama, the petitioner arrogantly responded, “dekh lo lga hai challan ke sath mein, usi mein mera naam hai.” His name, indeed, appeared on the vakalatnama attached with the challan. However, instead of calming down, the petitioner became more aggressive. He began shouting louder, creating a nuisance that forced Ms. ‘X’ to pause the court proceedings. When she reiterated that the matter had already been adjourned, the petitioner allegedly charged towards the dais and began threatening her, stating, “aisa karo matter transfer kar do CMM ko, order karo abhi, aise kaise adjourn kar diya matter.” He further warned her that he would be moving an application to transfer the case. In the presence of court staff and litigants, the petitioner continued to shout threats: “mein tumhari complaint karunga CMM ke pass, mein kal khud hi jaunga High Court, mein dekhta hun tumhe abhi, order karo abhi, dasti do copy.” He thereafter began banging the table repeatedly, attempting to obstruct judicial work. In her complaint, Ms. ‘X’ stated that based on his behaviour and speech, she suspected he was under the influence of alcohol. She then directed him to leave the courtroom. However, at this point, he became even more violent and shouted: “mein kahin nahi jaunga, mein dekhta hu kis me dum hai mujhe bahar nikalne ka, tum kah do or mein chal jaun—nahi jaunga bahar.” He then allegedly uttered an extremely offensive and vulgar remark towards Ms. ‘X’, stating: “chadhi far kar rakh dunga.” She sought the accused’s identification and directed court staff to retain him for a breath analysis. However, before the test could be conducted, the petitioner fled the courtroom while continuing to hurl filthy abuse at her. Deeply shaken by the incident, Ms. ‘X’ submitted a formal complaint with the police. She alleged that the petitioner herein “had insulted her and had outraged her modesty, being a female judicial officer and had also insulted the court’s dignity.”
It is worth mentioning that the Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 186, 189, 228, 509, and 353 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment, with the terms directed to run consecutively. The sentence of imprisonment was for two years. An appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which also directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
By the way, it cannot go unnoticed that the Petitioner did not challenge the conviction, but confined his revision to the question of sentence. He submitted that he had already undergone 5 months and 17 days in custody, had clean antecedents, and was remorseful. He sought that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
It merits mentioning that the Court while taking potshots at the petitioner held that, “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.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Delhi High Court mandates in para 40 that, “To conclude, this Court would observe that to take a lenient view in a case like the present, where shameful language was used against a judicial officer, would amount to doing injustice to justice. The seat of a judicial officer has its own dignity and is sacrosanct for members of the community who appear before her. If such an officer is not able to get adequate justice for herself, it may leave a scar or hurt dignity that cannot be permitted.”
More to the point, the Delhi High Court then propounds in para 41 that, “When the dignity of any judicial officer is torn by way of use of filthy words proved beyond reasonable doubt, the law must act as the thread that would mend and restore it.”
Most remarkably and most forthrightly, the Delhi High Court underscores in para 42 postulating that, “If a court of law decides a case on the basis of misplaced sympathy or empathy either for the victim or for the accused, it will set a wrong precedent. The officers who dispense justice, as first in the line of control of the sea of cases filed for adjudication, carry an important responsibility of dispensing justice to millions knocking at the doors of their Courts. In case, they are not safeguarded or extended respect, it will have serious repercussions not only on the justice delivery system as a whole, but also affect the working capacity and moral strength of the judicial officers.”
Needless to say, the Delhi High Court then holds in para 43 that, “Thus, this Court finds no ground to take any lenient view, and reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him.”
No doubt, the Delhi High Court very rightly concludes in para 44 holding that, “Accordingly, the impugned judgments and orders on sentence are upheld – but with the modification that the sentences shall run concurrently and not consecutively, as discussed in paragraph 36 of the judgment. The petitioner is directed to surrender within 15 days from date, and serve his unexpired portion of sentence.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Apex Court very firmly refused the prayers of petitioner praying for the reduction in the sentence. We must note here that the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan maintained most firmly that, “No, no. What mitigating factors? After this sentence, you cannot argue anything, no. Look at what is attributed… We cannot entertain this petition after this.” We thus see that the top Court granted the petitioner two weeks’ time to surrender and so also has robustly refused to interfere with the sentence that was served on him earlier. Very rightly so! No doubt, there definitely has to be absolute zero tolerance for any person misbehaving with a woman judge and that too by a lawyer who is an officer of the court, the standards of parameter definitely has to be higher and the accused lawyer cannot be allowed to take the woman’s dignity for granted on one pretext or the other!
Sanjeev Sirohi
