Threatening Or Intimidating Female Judge Is Assault On Justice Itself, Must Be Met With Firm Accountability: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday said that the act of threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability.

“The female force within the judiciary must never be left feeling helpless or as though they are to be treated at someone else's pleasure,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Refusing to take lenient view, the Court upheld the conviction of a lawyer who used abusive language towards a female judge in a challan matter. The lawyer had said “aise kar dia adjourn matter, aise kese date de di, main keh rha hun, abhi lo matter, order karo abhi” and “chadhi far kar rakh dunga.”

The female presiding officer submitted a formal complaint with the police, alleging that the advocate “had insulted her and had outraged her modesty, being a female judicial officer and had also insulted the court's dignity.”

Upholding the conviction and sentence, Justice Sharma said that the act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over Court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity.

“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 said.

It added that it is a matter of deep concern that, at times, even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse.

The Court said that when a female judge becomes the target of personal indignity and humiliation by an officer of the court – an advocate, it reflects not only a personal wrong but also the systemic vulnerability women continue to face, even at the highest echelons of legal authority.

“When a male advocate uses his position to violate the dignity of a female judicial officer, the issue is no longer of an individual judicial officer being subjected to misconduct – it becomes a reflection of the persistent challenge faced by women even in institutions which have been entrusted with the duty of upholding justice for all,” the Court said.

It added: “When a woman who occupies a seat of authority, especially in the judiciary, is subjected to acts that compromise her dignity, it threatens to undo years of progress.”

The Court also said that the judicial process is not a solitary act but is a collaborative exercise between the Bench and the Bar.

It said that though justice is traditionally considered blind, however, it refers to the blindfold which does not let it differentiate or recognize inequality on the basis of gender, religion, caste, class, social standing, or power – but weighs both sides before it without being affected by whosoever the parties are.

“In the above background, it can be thus safely said that – justice may be blind in the above sense, but is not silent. Speaking up and dispensing justice fearlessly to all before it is the true essence of the Indian judiciary which makes it trustworthy,” the Court said.

Justice Sharma modified the order on sentence to the limited extent that all the sentences awarded to the lawyer shall run concurrently and not consecutively.

“Consequently, the total sentence to be actually undergone by the petitioner shall be confined to 18 months, out of which he has undergone 05 months and 17 days,” the Court said.

Title: SANJAY RATHORE v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 619

Click here to read order