The Delhi High Court has expressed strong displeasure regarding the conduct of an advocate who appeared in court with red tape on his lips as a mark of protest. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal, termed the conduct “unbecoming and unbefitting” while refraining from initiating action against the counsel in view of his long standing at the Bar. The Court also recorded the petitioner’s refusal to accept the State Government’s settlement proposal.
The observations were made in the Order dated December 1, 2025, while hearing a batch of petitions, including a Contempt Case (Court on its Own Motion v. Delhi Administration Thr BDO, CONT.CAS(C) 16/2016) and a Writ Petition (Nand Kishore v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 3858/2025).
The Incident and Arguments
When the matters were called for hearing, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), intended to open arguments. At this juncture, Mr. R.K. Saini, counsel for the petitioner, entered the courtroom. The Court noted that Mr. Saini entered “leisurely with red stickfast tape on his lips.”
Mr. Jain proceeded to apprise the Court regarding a reconsideration of the proposal by the State Government. He informed the Bench that a fresh offer had been made to the petitioner in writing. The proposal was explained to the Court and the opposing counsel.
Upon being confronted with the proposal, Mr. Saini removed the red tape from his lips. The Court initially apprehended that the counsel might have sustained injuries on his face. However, upon inquiry, Mr. Saini informed the Bench that “on the last two hearings, he was stopped midway by the Court during his arguments and as such he has placed those red tapes on his lips, symbolizing that he had been silenced.”
On the merits of the settlement, Mr. Saini stated that the petitioner was “not willing to accept the proposal given by State Government, even if the State Government is willing to increase the amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-,” which the Court noted was a “reasonable sum” offered in the proposal.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Bench took serious objection to the mode of protest adopted by the counsel. Addressing Mr. Saini’s grievance about being silenced, the Court clarified the context of the previous hearings:
“The aforesaid conduct of Mr. Saini warrants us to place on record that the arguments canvassed by Mr. Saini on last couple of occasions before this Court were getting too lengthy and repetitive, and this Court upon appreciating the case of petitioner requested Mr. Saini to stop from arguing further, so that we could have the response of the counsel for the other side.”
The Court characterized the conduct displayed by Mr. Saini as “completely in poor taste and unexpected of a lawyer of the stature of Mr. Saini who, in our understanding, has standing of more than 25 years.”
While noting that the incident could have prompted the passing of appropriate orders against the advocate, the Bench exercised restraint considering his seniority. However, the Order explicitly recorded the Bench’s “strong displeasure to the unbecoming and unbefitting conduct of Advocate Mr. R.K. Saini.”
Decision and Directions
Regarding the procedural aspects, an application for amendment (CM APPL. 75400/2025) was dismissed as withdrawn after Mr. Saini chose not to press it.
In view of the rejection of the proposal and the developments in the hearing, the Court granted the State Government “time of two weeks… to file his response in the form of affidavit to be sworn by some senior officers of the State Government, both in the Contempt Petition, as also the Writ Petition.”
The petitioner was also granted two weeks to file a rejoinder. The matters have been listed for further hearing on January 21, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v. Delhi Administration Thr BDO and connected matter.
- Case Numbers: CONT.CAS(C) 16/2016 & W.P.(C) 3858/2025
- Bench: Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal
