Delhi High Court: In a contempt reference placed before the present Court, in view of the order dated 23-11-2024, passed by the ASJ (SC POCSO) South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘the Trial Court’) wherein it was recorded that respondent (‘contemnor’) was an Advocate who misbehaved and raised his voice in Court and had also indulged in unnecessary aggressive behaviour in the Court, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ., directed the contemnor, to render pro bono services to at least two accused persons in the Trial Court.
In the present case, it was mentioned in order dated 23-11-2024, passed by the Trial Court, that during cross-examination of one of the witnesses, the contemnor, who was an advocate started arguing with the Court in the most rash and condescending manner. He also pointed finger at the Trial Court and questioned its judicial wisdom when he was told that his objection raised was not sustainable. It was further mentioned that the entire peaceful atmosphere of the Court was disturbed, and the manner and conduct of the contemnor was found to be unwarranted. However, without paying any heed to the repeated warnings of the Trial Court to maintain the peaceful decorum and to be mindful of the words , the contemnor did not stop from arguing and raising his voice.
The notice was issued to the contemnor, and after his appearance, the Court heard the submissions, wherein he had tendered an unconditional apology to this Court for his conduct before the Trial Court. He submitted that he had put in more than 20 years of practice and there had been no untoward incident from his end in any court room during these years.
The Court stated that there could be no doubt that unnecessary aggression and raising of voice in Court which demonstrates disrespect could not be tolerated. Lawyers’ ought to maintain decorum in the court room. However, considering the long years of practice of the contemnor and after having perused the conduct complained of and having heard the submissions made by the contemnor, the Court was of the opinion that the apology deserved to be accepted.
Thus, the Court directed the contemnor, to render pro bono services to at least two accused persons in the Trial Court. For this purpose, the present order be communicated to the Presiding Officer concerned, who should appoint the contemnor for rendering pro bono service in the Court in at least two matters.
[Court on its own motion v. Shivashish Gunwal, CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2 of 2025, decided on 12-03-2025]
