Supreme Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Lawyer For Abusing Woman Judge During Proceedings

The Supreme Court today (June 10) refused to take a lenient approach in a matter where a lawyer was convicted for abusing a lady judicial officer in Court. 

The bench refused to reduce the imprisonment sentence to 6 months and said "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," the bench commented orally.

The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea against the order of the Delhi High Court which 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 used abusive and vulgar expletives.

The lawyer, namely Sanjay Rathore, was convicted by the Trial Court and sentended to 18 months simple imprisonment under S.509 IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 3 months each under S.189 (threatening public servant) and S.353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty). 

The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the order on sentence to the limited extent that all the sentences awarded to the lawyer shall run concurrently and not consecutively. 

During the hearings, Justice Manmohan verbally remarked, "just see the inspection report, the language used- we cannot even say in the open court" 

Looking at the gravity of the petitioner's conduct, Justice Manmohan further expressed that if a stern view is not taken against such a behaviour, women judicial officers would not be ensured a safe work environment. He said : 

"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." 

The counsel for the petitioner urged the bench to reduce his term of imprisonment to six months. He stressed there were several 'mitigating factors' for this consideration, like his ageing parents and small children. He informed that the Bar Council has also taken action against the lawyer. 

The Court granted the petitioner 2 weeks to surrender.

Background 

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 Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court 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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Details :  SANJAY RATHORE Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) AND ANR.| SLP(Crl) No. 8930/2025