⚖️Case Study: Criminal Contempt Reference No. 1 of 2022

​🏛️Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench

📌Coram: Urmila Joshi-Phalke & Raj D. Wakode, JJ.

📅Decided On: October 5, 2026

Applicant: Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid (Civil Judge, J.D. & J.M.F.C., Arni)

Non-Applicants / Contemnors: Sagar Durgadas Rathod & Durgadas D. Rathod (Advocates)

​1. Factual Background

​The matter stems from a Criminal Contempt Reference forwarded by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Arni, District Yavatmal, concerning Regular Criminal Case No. 213/2019 (State vs. Nilesh Jadhav and Ors.).

​On November 26, 2021, the case was fixed for the return of bailable warrants. Accused No. 1, Nilesh Jadhav, remained absent despite service, prompting the Magistrate to issue a non-bailable warrant (NBW).

• ​The Incident Involving Non-Applicant No. 1: Non-applicant No. 1 (Advocate Sagar Rathod) appeared and insisted on cancelling the warrant in the absence of the accused, citing an out-of-court settlement and a previous High Court order. When the Magistrate declined to record evidence or cancel the warrant without securing the presence of other accused, Non-applicant No. 1 began shouting in the court hall, uttering threatening and scandalous remarks: “कोर्टाला आम्हाला त्रास द्यावयाचा आहे तसेच, कोर्ट एका डोळ्याने घेत नाही व आमचे केससमध्ये पाहुन जास्त दंड करतात, आम्ही तुम्हाला पाहुन घेईल, तुमची तक्रार करणार आणि आम्ही बारचा ठराव घेउन कोर्टाविरुध्द कारवाई करणार.”
• ​The Incident Involving Non-Applicant No. 2: Shortly after, Non-applicant No. 2 (Advocate Durgadas Rathod, father of No. 1 and then-President of the Arni Taluka Court Bar Association) entered the court hall while the Judge was dictating the order, pointed fingers, and threatened him: “जर काही रेकॉर्डवर घेतले आणि कार्य व ही केली तर आम्ही तुम्हाला सोडणार नाही तसेच तुमचेविरुध्द भ्रष्टाचाराचे पुरावे वरिष्ठ अधिका-याना सादर करु.”

​2. Legal Issues Discussed

1. ​Whether the acts, statements, and threats hurled by practicing advocates (including the Bar Association President) against a presiding judicial officer inside the court hall constitute criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India?
2. ​Whether an unconditional apology tendered by the contemnors at a belated stage, following the framing of charges and under judicial compulsion/oral direction, can be accepted to purge the contempt?
3. ​What is the appropriate measure of punishment—imprisonment versus fine and referral to the State Bar Council—for advocates undermining the administration of justice?

​3. Contentions of the Parties to the Dispute

​Applicant (Judicial Officer / Prosecution):

• ​The conduct and utterances of the non-applicants substantially interfered with and obstructed the due course and administration of justice.
• ​The threats of false corruption complaints and disciplinary resolutions were designed to terrorize, pressurize, and demoralize the judge from passing judicial orders fearlessly.

​Non-Applicants (Contemnors):

• ​Denied all allegations, claiming the situation arose out of misunderstandings or a “heat of arguments” scenario while vigorously representing a client.
• ​Non-applicant No. 2 claimed his representations were made in his representative capacity as Bar President voicing general grievances.
• ​Tendered an unconditional apology (subsequently submitted in writing before the trial judge upon oral instructions of the High Court) and requested its acceptance.

​4. Case Laws Discussed (Along with Complete Citations)

• ​Prashant Bhushan and another, In Re, (2021) 1 SCC 745 – Discussed regarding the scope of contempt jurisdiction when statements tend to undermine the dignity, authority, and public confidence in the judiciary, and when criticism crosses into scandalizing the court.
• ​O.P. Sharma and others v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (2011) 6 SCC 86 – Highlighted that no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat, terrorize, or malign the presiding officer to secure favorable orders.
• ​C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, (1971) 1 SCC 626 – Emphasized that scurrilous attacks on judges undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
• ​Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1973) SCC OnLine Delhi 158 – Addressed the adverse effects of attacks on judicial conduct on the administration of justice.
• ​T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (through the Amicus Curiae) v. Ashok Khot and another, (2006) 5 SCC 1 – Held that an apology must be offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace; if offered only when punishment is imminent, it ceases to be genuine and becomes an act of a cringing coward.
• ​Sanjiv Dutta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, In re, (1995) 3 SCC 619 – Noted that the judicial system risks being wrecked from within if corrective steps are not taken against erring professionals.
• ​High Court on its own motion v. Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi, MANU/MH/0093/2011 – Emphasized that attacks and threats on judges create general dissatisfaction and fatal obstructions to justice.
• ​Bal Kishan Giri v. State of UP, MANU/SC/0514/2014 – Discussed the definition and requirements of a sincere apology versus a hollow “paper apology” designed to escape legal rigors.
• ​Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court and another, AIR 1974 SC 710 – Reaffirmed that an apology is not to be accepted as a matter of course.
• ​The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, AIR 1976 SC 242 – Discussed professional standards and conduct of advocates.
• ​Asharam M. Jain v. A.T. Gupta and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1151 – Addressed the necessity of court contempt powers to secure public respect.
• ​Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Vijai Singh and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 642 – Clarified the discretionary power of courts to reject unrepentant apologies.
• ​Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and ors., (1998) 4 SCC 409 – Outlined the inherent powers of Courts of Record to punish contempts.
• ​Smt. Pushpaben and another v. Narandas V. Badiani and another, (1979) 2 SCC 394 – Established that fine is the rule and imprisonment is the exception under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
• ​S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue v. Vinay Chandra Misra, (1981) 1 SCC 436 – Analyzed Articles 129 and 215 preservation of powers of Courts of Record.
• ​C. Elumalai and Ors. v. AGL Irudayaraj and another, AIR 2009 SCC 2214 (referencing Anil Rataan Sarkar and ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21) – Stressed that the Contempt Act secures public confidence and prevents court orders from becoming a mockery.

​5. Observations of the High Court

• ​On the Nobility of the Legal Profession: The Court noted that legal practice is a noble profession contributing heavily to constitutional governance. However, representing a client does not license an advocate to act with total disregard for court decorum.
• ​On the Nature of the Conduct: The High Court observed that the son-and-father duo used threatening, abusive language and hurled false corruption threats against a Civil Judge precisely while judicial proceedings were ongoing. This was a direct, calculated attempt to terrorize and interfere with the administration of justice.
• ​On the Belated Apology: The Court firmly rejected the respondents’ belated and forced apology, noting that they failed to appear initially, prolonged proceedings, and only tendered apologies after the High Court formulated charges. Citing apex jurisprudence, the bench reiterated that an apology is a sign of real contrition, not a universal panacea or a strategy to escape punishment.

​6. Concluding Remarks & Order by the High Court

​The High Court concluded that the respondents were undeniably guilty of criminal contempt of court. However, weighing the fact that they are practicing lawyers who ultimately tendered apologies (albeit late and under direction), the Court ruled that imprisonment was unnecessary, keeping in mind that fine is the rule and imprisonment the exception.

​📝Final Order:

1. ​Fine: Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were ordered to pay a fine of ₹2,000 each within two weeks.
2. ​Bar Council Referral: The proceedings were officially referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate disciplinary action.
3. ​Costs: In addition to the fine, each respondent was ordered to pay costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited into the Public Welfare Account at the Union Bank of India, Nagpur High Court Branch.

​7. Key Takeaways

• ​Bounds of Advocacy: Zealous representation of a client does not extend to browbeating, intimidating, or threatening judicial officers. Advocates are officers of the court and must maintain decorum.
• ​Inadmissibility of Hollow Apologies: An apology is an act of true contrition and repentance, not a tactical defense mechanism or “paper apology” deployed only when punishment is imminent.
• ​Punishment Norms in Contempt: Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, imposing a fine remains the general rule while imprisonment serves as an exception reserved for extreme cases.
• ​Dual Accountability: Misconduct by advocates inside court halls invites both criminal contempt proceedings by Courts of Record (Article 215) and professional disciplinary action by the State Bar Council.

​8. Hashtags

​#CriminalContempt #LegalEthics #BombayHighCourt #AdvocatesAct #JudicialIndependence #CourtDecorum #LawStudents #CaseStudy #ContemptOfCourt

📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇