Threatening judge with gender-specific abuse assault on justice itself: Delhi High Court

Any act which threatens or intimidates a judge through gender-specific abuse is an assault on justice itself, the Delhi High Court has observed while refusing to reduce the sentence awarded to a lawyer for outraging the modesty of a woman judicial officer by using abusive words.

The high court said it was not a mere case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where "injustice was done to justice itself" and where a judge who symbolises the impartial voice of the law became the target of a personal attack while discharging her official duties.

"It is a matter of deep concern that, at times, even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse. When a female judge becomes the target of personal indignity and humiliation by an officer of the court — an advocate, as in the present case — it reflects not only a personal wrong but also the systemic vulnerability women continue to face, even at the highest aechelons of legal authority," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court, in its 26 May judgement, has refused to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence awarded to the accused advocate to a period of five months — which he has already undergone in jail.

The court, however, modified the trial court's order to the extent that his sentences shall run concurrently and not consecutively.

The sentences directed by the trial court to run consecutively would have resulted in a total term of two years.

After modification in the order, the total sentence of the advocate, who used abusive language towards the woman judge in a challan matter in 2015, shall be limited to 18 months.

"Any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself, and must be met with firm accountability," the judgement said.

The high court said no judicial officer should ever be made to feel exposed or unsupported and the female force within the judiciary must never be left feeling helpless.

The female presiding officer of the trial court had submitted a formal complaint with the police after the incident in October 2015, alleging that the advocate "had insulted her and outraged her modesty, being a female judicial officer, and also insulted the court's dignity".

Terming the incident "deeply disturbing", Justice Sharma said the case presented "shocking" conduct by the advocate, which was completely unacceptable.

The high court said that here injustice was not directed at a distant litigant or an unknown complainant, it was inflicted upon a sitting woman judicial officer, within her own courtroom — a space that should embody respect, order and the majesty of law.

"Here, where she was entrusted with the solemn duty to dispense justice without fear or favour, she was subjected to misconduct, threats and humiliation by one who, as an advocate, was duty-bound to uphold the dignity of the court.

"Thus, in this place, where the complainant was to command respect and uphold the majesty of law, she was instead made to endure misconduct, impropriety and humiliation at the hands of one who was duty-bound to uphold decorum — an advocate," it said.

The high court said if a woman holding judicial office is made to feel that her authority is conditional on the civility or restraint of others, the very foundation of judicial independence would get shaken.

A judge, male or female, must never be made to feel that they are protected by courtesy rather than by law and respect for their office, it added.

The court further said the incident reflects a mindset where even woman in empowered roles are not seen as immune from humiliation or indignity.

It is important that such incidents are not dismissed as isolated or trivial. They must be treated with the seriousness they deserve, for they influence how the judiciary is perceived and, more importantly, how women perceive their place in it, the court said.

"When one who sits on the chair of a judicial officer to deliver justice is wronged by use of filthy language, the law must speak louder – on her behalf, and on its own. The law must speak most clearly in cases where the victim is the voice of justice herself, being looked upon by all those appearing in her court seeking justice," it said.

The court observed that when the dignity of any judicial officer is torn by way of use of filthy words proved beyond reasonable doubt, the law must act as the thread that would mend and restore it.

PTI inputs lightly edited for clarity