The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, while expressing its strong displeasure over the recent incident of a lawyer allegedly hurling a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during court proceedings, said that such incidents warranted the formulation of preventive and regulatory mechanisms to preserve the sanctity of court proceedings.

Noting that the episode caused deep anguish to everyone, including the Bar and the Bench, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the affront was not to an individual but to the judicial institution itself.

Such acts not only strike at the very foundation of judicial dignity and institutional decorum but also erode public faith in the justice delivery system, it observed, adding that incidents of aggression or disrespect within court precincts were antithetical to the rule of law.

The High Court said that acts of such nature may constitute criminal contempt under Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in addition to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It further stressed on the collective responsibility of the Bar, the Bench, and the administration to uphold courtroom decorum and judicial authority.

The High Court made these observations while hearing a public interest litigation seeking directions for the removal of videos of the incident circulating across digital and social media platforms.

Filed by Tejasvi Mohan, the petition sought judicial directions to ensure the removal of all online content relating to the incident and the formulation of guidelines to curb the public dissemination of such material.

The petitioner contended that the identity of individuals engaged in disruptive acts within court premises should not be publicised to prevent the conferment of undue notoriety or false publicity that might embolden similar conduct in the future.

Appearing for the Central government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma apprised the Division Bench that contempt of court proceedings have already been initiated before the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against the concerned lawyer.

The proceedings were instituted following consent granted by the Attorney General for India under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noted the ASG, adding that the Apex Court was contemplating not only a contempt action but also the issuance of John Doe directions and the framing of comprehensive guidelines to deter similar acts in future.

The High Court directed the petitioner to intervene in the pending matter before the top court of the country, noting that judicial propriety demanded the avoidance of duplicity of proceedings.

The petitioner could even request the Supreme Court for directions to the government for the framing of some guidelines or protocols in this regard, it suggested.

The Division Bench said that in case the petitioner failed to intervene in the Supreme Court proceedings, the High Court would consider taking up the matter independently on the next date of hearing.

It then listed the matter for further consideration on December 4.

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting