A Delhi sessions court has set aside a magisterial order that directed two accused to stand in court for an entire day with their hands raised, after finding them guilty of contempt. The court held that the order was not only legally unsustainable but also violated fundamental rights.
The ruling came from Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna, who was hearing an appeal filed by Kuldeep and Rakesh. On July 15, a magistrate had directed the two men to stand with their hands raised until the end of the court day, citing non-compliance with an earlier order to furnish bail bonds.
In a strongly worded order dated August 1, Judge Chandna declared the punishment “illegal” and observed that it failed the tests of legality and propriety. “This kind of sentence is not contemplated in law,” the court said.
The judge underlined that mere non-furnishing of bail bonds could not be equated with contempt of court or an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with intentional insult or interruption to a public servant during judicial proceedings.
“The act of accused persons of not furnishing bail bonds does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 228 IPC, and can in no manner be taken as intentional insult or interruption to public servant in judicial proceedings,” the order stated.
Criticising the procedure adopted, the court pointed out that the magistrate did not give the accused an opportunity to show cause or be heard before punishing them. “Without hearing them, the accused persons were asked to stand in the court till the rising of the court with their hands straight in the air,” the judge noted.
Citing Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the sessions court held that such a punitive direction violates the dignity of the individual. “Every person appearing before the court (even if involved in a crime) has the inalienable right to live with dignity and is entitled to equal respect,” the court said.
It also reminded that “judges are duty-bound to safeguard basic and natural rights meant for a dignified existence of individuals.”
The order passed by Magistrate Saurabh Goyal was related to a complaint case from 2018, which was at the stage of pre-charge evidence. The magistrate had stated in his order that the failure to furnish bail bonds despite repeated calls caused delay and amounted to contempt.
However, the sessions court ruled that the magistrate had “completely failed in his duty and responsibility to conduct judicial proceedings legally and properly.”
Setting aside the punishment, the court concluded: “The magistrate is advised to properly read and understand the legal provisions before using his discretionary power.”
