LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate v. Alok Pandey, C.J.M.

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 679Decided 10 May 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2015
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

The Allahabad High Court convicted an advocate for criminal contempt after finding that he, along with 2-3 junior colleagues, entered the chamber of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Allahabad, hurled abuses, raised his hand to assault the CJM, and threatened him over an order the CJM had declined to pass. The High Court sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment, a fine, a six-month ban from entering the Allahabad District Judgeship premises, and two years of being kept under watch by the District Judge. The advocate appealed to the Supreme Court, denying the incident and claiming the CJM had broken an assurance not to pass an order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the advocate's story was concocted and that he had indeed misbehaved, emphasizing that an advocate, as an officer of the court, is held to a higher standard of conduct and has "no business to threaten a Judge or hurl abuses" over a judicial order: if aggrieved, the proper course was to approach higher judicial authorities, not intimidate the officer who passed the order. Citing precedents including Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, the Court affirmed that while an advocate's license cannot be suspended for contempt, courts can bar a contemnor advocate from appearing before them to protect the dignity and purity of court proceedings. While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence: the six-month imprisonment was suspended for three years (conditional on good conduct and continuing not to enter the Allahabad District Judgeship premises for that period), with the imprisonment liable to be activated if he breached the conditions, and he was directed to pay the fine.

Lesson Learnt

Lawyers, as officers of the court, are held to a stricter code of conduct than ordinary citizens, threatening or abusing a judicial officer over an unfavourable order is criminal contempt, and courts can restrict a contemnor advocate's access to courthouses even without permanently suspending his license to practice.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case