The Delhi High Court on Friday held 12 persons guilty of criminal contempt for obstructing and assaulting court-appointed commissioners during their official duties in Kolkata.
A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidhyanathan Shankar sentenced the contemnors — identified as local shopkeepers and salespersons — to one day’s simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 each.
The incident occurred when advocate commissioners, appointed by the court, visited markets in Kolkata’s Khidderpore area to prepare an inventory of counterfeit products allegedly being sold under the Samsung trademark and its oval slanted logo. They were directed to seize and seal such goods and release them on superdari, with instructions to produce them before the court when required.
However, the commissioners were reportedly attacked by an unruly mob, leaving them and the accompanying police personnel injured. The high court observed that the violent assault was intended to intimidate and prevent the officials from performing their judicially assigned work.
“The court commissioners have been brutally beaten up by the contemnors, striking terror in their minds and forcing them to flee from the place,” the bench said in its order. It added that such conduct not only obstructed justice but also undermined the authority of the court.
“If not dealt with heavy hands, the majesty of law will come down in the eyes of ordinary citizens, which will have a deleterious effect on the fabric of society. It is imperative — rather, the duty of the court — to ensure that people who interfere in the administration of justice are dealt with severely so that the rule of law prevails,” the court emphasised.
The contempt proceedings stemmed from a plea filed by Samsung Electronics Company Limited, which alleged that several vendors in Kolkata were selling counterfeit phones, tablets, and accessories under its brand name. Acting on the complaint, the high court had appointed 11 advocate commissioners to conduct inspections across markets identified in the petition.
Despite the contemnors’ unconditional apologies during the proceedings, the court held them accountable for criminal contempt, stressing that an assault on judicial officers performing their duties cannot be excused.
