In a sharply worded order that reads like a reality check for those who mistake theatrics for persuasion, the Delhi High Court has made it abundantly clear: every judge in the judicial chain — from the modestly furnished district courtroom to the marbled halls above — carries the same authority, and none is to be spoken to as though volume could tilt the scales of justice.
The case landed before the High Court after a district judge documented a lawyer’s outburst during a civil matter that has been dragging since 2016. What unfolded was a performance no courtroom ever asked for. When an adjournment request was refused, the lawyer reportedly raised his voice to suggest that he was accustomed to arguing before the country’s highest court, where patience and “multiple opportunities” were supposedly the norm.
But theatrics seemed to evaporate when the same judge invited him to make final submissions later in the day — the lawyer simply declared he would not argue. Add to this a disputed statement about whether his client had reached a settlement, and the stage was set for the High Court’s intervention.
The High Court didn’t mince words. It called the behaviour “deplorable,” pointing out that even after being asked to lower his voice, the counsel continued addressing the trial judge in a high pitch, brandishing his Supreme Court credentials like a backstage pass.
The Court observed that a worrying trend has crept into trial courts: some lawyers, lacking merit in their case or faced with judges unwilling to indulge delay tactics, resort to overpowering the courtroom with bluster. The order was clear — such behaviour is not advocacy; it’s intimidation cloaked in legal robes.
Reasserting its supervisory role, the High Court reminded that courtroom decorum is not optional and that every judge deserves the same respect, irrespective of hierarchy. The petitioner’s challenge — aimed at reopening an opportunity to lead evidence — was dismissed outright as frivolous.
Interestingly, the lawyer later attempted to explain that he simply “habitually speaks loudly,” a justification that didn’t quite survive judicial scrutiny. While he denied refusing to argue, the Court pointedly noted his silence when the opportunity was actually granted.
Eventually, remorse surfaced. The petition was withdrawn, and the chapter closed — but the High Court’s message remains etched for the wider Bar:
In the courtroom, credibility is built on reason, not resonance.
