The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has found two lawyers guilty of criminal contempt after they allegedly shouted at and threatened a trial judge during proceedings, observing that lawyers cannot be permitted to disrupt or intimidate judicial officers.
A Bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Raj D Wakode held that threatening a judge, raising one’s voice in court and attempting to prevent the judicial officer from passing an order amounted to serious interference with the administration of justice.
The case concerned advocates Sagar Durgadas Rathod and Durgadas D Rathod, a father-son duo. Durgadas Rathod was serving as President of the Arni Bar Association when the incident occurred in 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arni.
The controversy began after the magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against an accused who was absent from the proceedings. Durgadas Rathod sought cancellation of the warrant without producing the accused before the court.
When the magistrate declined the request, the two advocates allegedly raised their voices and threatened the judicial officer with complaints of corruption.
The incident was subsequently brought before the High Court for contempt proceedings.
The High Court took a stern view of the conduct, stressing that an advocate, as an officer of the court, has an added responsibility to preserve courtroom discipline rather than undermine it.
The Bench observed that threats against judicial officers and attempts to interfere with their orders can have a wider impact on the justice system by intimidating and demoralising judges.
The Court also refused to accept the unconditional apologies tendered by the two advocates. It said an apology must reflect genuine remorse and cannot be deployed as a convenient escape from the consequences of contempt.
The judges made it clear that a belated or merely formal apology, without genuine regret, cannot wipe away contemptuous conduct.
The Court imposed a fine of ₹2,000 each on the two lawyers and directed them to deposit ₹50,000 each towards costs in the High Court’s public welfare account, taking the total financial liability to ₹1.04 lakh.
The matter has also been sent to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action against the advocates.
The proceedings arose from Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid v. Sagar Rathod & Anr.