The High Court of Delhi, comprising a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, has framed criminal contempt charges under Section 2(c) punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a practicing advocate for allegedly using derogatory language, issuing threats, and lowering the authority of the court during proceedings before a District Judge. Upon having the charges read over and explained to him in person, the respondent advocate pleaded not guilty and stated that he would contest the charges.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings originated from two separate references submitted by Sh. M. K. Nagpal, District Judge, Commercial Court-13, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
In the first matter, CONT.CAS.(CRL) 7/2025, the reference related to proceedings conducted on April 3, 2025, during the hearing of an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Misc. DJ No. 282/2025 (Ankit Sarda vs. ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd.). According to the charge, the advocate raised his voice, leveled allegations of bias against the court, accused presiding officers of passing mechanical and adverse orders, and threatened to file retaliatory complaints if contempt action was initiated.
In the second matter, CONT.CAS.(CRL) 9/2025, based on a reference dated April 23, 2025, the incident took place during a virtual court hearing on April 16, 2025, in CS (COMM) No. 25/2025 (Mohd. Azam Khan vs. Zulfiqr Ahmed). While inquiring about an incorrect listing date on the cause list, the contemnor allegedly misbehaved, used un-parliamentary language, and demanded a written apology from the court, despite assurances that the responsible staff member would be summoned.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
The High Court observed that the acts committed in open court and via the virtual platform in full view of those present lowered the authority of the court and constituted an attempt to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.
In the charge framed in CONT.CAS.(CRL) 7/2025, the bench reproduced excerpts of the language used by the advocate in open court:
“Main apse dar ke..or jo apko likhna hai aap likh dijiye, mai vo advocate nahi hu jo ji janab ji huzur karu, I am standing with my rights and I will take it either from you or from the Delhi High Court and thereafter from the Supreme Court and now this is not the dispute of case, now this is the dispute between you and me and I challenge you also ..apko jaha jana hai jayen jo karna hai kariye and I will not spare you, chahe isme mere 10 lakh kharch ho jaave behind you.”
The contemnor further stated to the presiding officer:
“Apko salary milti hai ap mere upar koi ahsaan nahi kar rahe, mere tax se apki salary jati hai mai 30% ke Slab mai aata hu mai salary de raha hu apko…aap yaha baith ke dadagiri karenge kya, apki baat sunte rahe yaha baith ke, ap kahe..yes sir, mai apka naukar hun kya.”
In CONT.CAS.(CRL) 9/2025, during an exchange over a clerical listing error, the contemnor remarked:
“Vo sir theek hota agar aap deserve karte to, deserve hi nahi karte respect sir….”
When cautioned by the presiding officer regarding the use of derogatory words, the contemnor stated:
“Sir vo to main, aap kaise bhi lijiye, us se hame koi farak nahi padta, aapne aaj galti ki hain, uske liye sorry boliye. Kyon ki presiding officer is liable for the mistake.”
The Decision
The High Court formally framed charges under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in both matters. The respondent advocate pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In CONT.CAS.(CRL) 7/2025, the High Court directed the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central District, to retrieve and transmit the audio-video recording of the court proceedings dated April 3, 2025. In CONT.CAS.(CRL) 9/2025, the court permitted the contemnor to approach the registry to obtain a complete copy of the reference along with the annexed audio-video recording.
The High Court granted the respondent four weeks to file his written response to the charges and ordered him to remain personally present on the next date of hearing, fixed for October 15, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
Case No.: CONT.CAS.(CRL) 7/2025 & CONT.CAS.(CRL) 9/2025
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Date: August 20, 2026
