The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to reduce the 18-month imprisonment awarded to an advocate convicted for using abusive and vulgar language against a woman judicial officer during a court proceeding, asserting that such behaviour threatens the safety and dignity of women judges.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea challenging a Delhi High Court order that upheld the conviction of the lawyer, Sanjay Rathore. The apex court refused to show leniency in sentencing, stating sternly, “Today, majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function like this—if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state.”
Background
The incident took place during the hearing of a challan matter, where the convicted lawyer had aggressively demanded the matter be taken up immediately, using vulgar expletives and threatening language towards the presiding woman judge. The judicial officer subsequently filed a formal complaint, accusing the advocate of outraging her modesty and undermining the dignity of the court.
Rathore was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to:
- 18 months of simple imprisonment under Section 509 IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman),
- 3 months each under Section 189 IPC (threatening a public servant) and Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty).
Delhi High Court’s Findings
While upholding the conviction, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court had ordered that all sentences run concurrently, not consecutively, reducing the total actual imprisonment to 18 months. At the time of the judgment, the lawyer had already served 5 months and 17 days in jail.
Justice Sharma had made strong remarks on the gravity of the misconduct:
“This is, therefore, not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself – where a judge, who symbolizes the impartial voice of the law, became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.”
The Court added that such attacks reflect “systemic vulnerability women continue to face, even at the highest echelons of legal authority.”
Supreme Court Proceedings
During the Supreme Court hearing, the petitioner’s counsel sought a reduction of the sentence to six months, citing mitigating circumstances such as ageing parents, young children, and the fact that the Bar Council had already taken action against the lawyer.
However, the apex court declined to interfere with the sentence. Justice Manmohan remarked that the language used in the incident was so appalling that it could not be repeated in open court, underscoring the gravity of the misconduct.
The Court granted the petitioner two weeks’ time to surrender.
