The Delhi High Court has framed criminal contempt charges against an advocate for allegedly making scandalous remarks against a Judicial Officer on social media and using unparliamentary language during court proceedings. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the allegations were intended to scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice.
Background
The proceedings originated from a reference dated March 26, 2025, from the Court of the learned JMFC-06 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts. The reference detailed an incident on January 25, 2025, where the respondent, a party in cross-FIRs (No. 188/2019 and 189/2019, PS Civil Lines), allegedly appeared late for her cross-examination and began “raising her voice and even used unparliamentary language” against the presiding officer. She further leveled allegations that the court was “working in collusion with the accused persons.”
Following the courtroom incident, the Judicial Officer was informed that the respondent had posted a “serious and scandalous” message on LinkedIn. The post, titled “Practice Knowledge #49: How to deal with biased judicial officers?”, described the officer as “young and immature,” “arrogant of his power and privilege,” and alleged he had “made a deal with the counsel of the other side” to acquit the accused persons.
The LinkedIn Investigation
During the proceedings, the respondent denied that the LinkedIn account belonged to her. Consequently, the High Court directed LinkedIn Corporation and the Cyber Cell of the Delhi Police to verify the account’s details.
The investigation revealed that the account was created on October 14, 2023. The Status Report from the Delhi Police and an affidavit from LinkedIn established a direct link between the account and the respondent:
- The IP logs were traced to mobile numbers registered in the name of the respondent.
- Certain login activities were linked to a mobile number belonging to the respondent’s brother.
- The account was closed or deleted on January 29, 2026—the same day the High Court had ordered the identity disclosure.
The Court noted: “Prima facie we find enough material against her to show that the said account not only belongs to her but also was being operated by her from the IP addresses belonging to her and her brother.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Bench observed that despite the evidence, the respondent maintained that she did not upload the post and thus the question of justifying it did not arise. Regarding the courtroom conduct, the respondent reiterated her allegations of collusion in her reply to the contempt petition, stating that “the Court record is a justification for the same.”
The High Court held:
“As prima facie we find that the above allegations are intended to scandalize the Court and have the effect of lowering the authority of the Court and to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings and the administration of justice, accordingly, we frame the following charge against the respondent.”
Charges Framed
The Court framed two specific charges under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, punishable under Section 12:
- Courtroom Misconduct: For raising her voice, using unparliamentary language, and accusing the court of collusion in open court on January 25, 2025, despite repeated warnings.
- Social Media Publication: For uploading the LinkedIn post containing scandalous remarks, thereby scandalizing the court and interfering with judicial proceedings.
Decision
The respondent pleaded “not guilty” to the charges. The Court directed her to file a reply to the charges within four weeks as per Rule 12 of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court Rules, 2025).
The respondent has been ordered to remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing, scheduled for May 26, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Court on its Own Motion vs. Sanjucta Kabasi, Advocate
- Case No.: CONT.CAS.(CRL) 5/2025
- Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
- Date of Order: 27.03.2026
