Delhi HC refuses leniency in sentence for advocate who abused female judge in courtroom

The Hindu

26-05-2025

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to take a lenient view against a lawyer who used abusive language towards a sitting female judge in her courtroom, emphasising it 'would amount to doing injustice to justice'.
The case dates back to October 30, 2015, when advocate Sanjay Rathore stormed into a courtroom at the Karkardooma Courts Complex and verbally abused the Metropolitan Magistrate after being informed that his client's vehicle challan matter had been adjourned to the next day.
When the judge reiterated that the matter had already been adjourned, Mr. Rathore allegedly charged towards the dais anduttered extremely offensive and vulgar remarks towards the judge.
Deeply shaken by the incident, the judge had submitted a formal complaint with the police. She alleged that the advocate 'had insulted her and had outraged her modesty being a female judicial officer, and had also insulted the court's dignity.'
Subsequently, the trial court convicted Mr. Rathore and he was sentenced to 18 months of simple imprisonment under Section 509 of the IPC (insulting the modesty of a woman), and three months each under Sections 189 (threatening a public servant) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty).
The trial court directed that these sentences run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of two years of simple imprisonment.
'Reflects systemic vulnerability of women'
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel restricted his submissions solely to the quantum of sentence, choosing not to contest the conviction itself. He urged the court to take a lenient view, arguing that the petitioner had already spent 5 months and seventeen days in judicial custody, and should be released on the basis of time already undergone.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in the 18-page verdict, said, 'Any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself, and must be met with firm accountability'.
Justice Sharma said that this was 'not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself – where a judge, who symbolises the impartial voice of the law, became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties'.
'When a female judge becomes the target of personal indignity and humiliation by an officer of the court – an advocate: as in the present case – it reflects not only a personal wrong but also the systemic vulnerability women continue to face, even at the highest echelons of legal authority,' she added.
Justice Sharma found no ground to take a lenient view or to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
The judge, however, modified the order on sentence to the limited extent that all the sentences awarded to the lawyer will run concurrently – and not consecutively. Consequently, the total sentence to be actually undergone by the lawyer will be confined to 18 months.