In a significant ruling underscoring the dignity of the judiciary and the need for gender-sensitive accountability, the Delhi High Court has made it unequivocally clear that intimidating a judge—especially through gendered abuse—is not just an act of personal misconduct but a direct assault on the institution of justice. The Court emphasized that such conduct must be addressed with the seriousness it deserves and cannot be excused or overlooked under any pretext, particularly when it targets a woman judge discharging her official duties from the Bench.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivering the judgment, was firm in her articulation:
“The female force within the judiciary must never be left feeling helpless or as though they are to be treated at someone else's pleasure.”
The Court was hearing a case involving a male advocate who used vulgar, abusive, and threatening language toward a female judicial officer during the course of a challan matter. Frustrated with the adjournment of the case, the advocate made aggressive and inappropriate remarks in open court, demanding immediate action and questioning how the date for the hearing was set. Most shockingly, he threatened to take severe retaliatory action against the judge.
Deeply disturbed by the incident, the woman judge filed a formal police complaint. She alleged that the advocate had insulted her not only as an individual but as a female judicial officer, thereby also violating the dignity and decorum of the court she was representing. The incident amounted to a serious affront to both her personal dignity and the integrity of the institution of justice.
Upholding the lawyer's conviction, Justice Sharma wrote a scathing and reflective judgment, stating that such conduct was not merely a matter of personal abuse, but a symbolic and institutional attack on the judiciary.
“This is, therefore, not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself – where a judge, who symbolizes the impartial voice of the law, became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.”
The Court emphasized that incidents like these reveal a disturbing truth—that even the seat of justice, upheld for its impartiality and sanctity, is not immune from gender-based humiliation. It observed that when women, even in powerful constitutional roles like judgeships, face such targeted abuse, it reflects the systemic vulnerability that continues to persist in society and within its institutions.
“When a male advocate uses his position to violate the dignity of a female judicial officer, the issue is no longer of an individual judicial officer being subjected to misconduct – it becomes a reflection of the persistent challenge faced by women even in institutions which have been entrusted with the duty of upholding justice for all,” the Court observed.
The judgment further noted that when a woman who occupies a seat of authority is publicly humiliated in such a demeaning way, it undermines the strides made towards gender equality and the trust the public places in the judicial process. It becomes not just a violation of her personal dignity, but a threat to the institutional decorum that sustains the rule of law.
“When a woman who occupies a seat of authority, especially in the judiciary, is subjected to acts that compromise her dignity, it threatens to undo years of progress,” the Court noted.
The Court also addressed the broader role of the Bench and the Bar in the administration of justice. It stated that the judicial process is not a solitary endeavor but a collaborative exercise between judges and lawyers. Respect and decorum are not optional—they are foundational. The judgment reminded that while justice is often depicted as blind, this blindness symbolizes impartiality, not silence.
“Justice may be blind in that it does not discriminate based on gender, caste, class, or status—but it is not silent. Its true strength lies in its voice and its courage to act,” Justice Sharma said.
The Delhi High Court's decision affirms that judicial officers must be protected not just legally, but with an institutional will to defend their dignity, especially when gender-based abuse seeks to undermine their authority. Judges, irrespective of gender, are representatives of the law and deserve to be treated with respect not because of who they are individually, but because of what their office symbolizes in a democratic society.
While the Court upheld the conviction of the lawyer, it modified the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively. As a result, the total imprisonment to be served by the convict was reduced to 18 months, of which 5 months and 17 days had already been served.
“Consequently, the total sentence to be actually undergone by the petitioner shall be confined to 18 months,” the Court concluded.
This judgment is not just a reaffirmation of judicial dignity—it is a warning. Any attempt to demean a judge, especially through gendered threats or abuse, is a direct challenge to the values of justice and equality that the Constitution of India seeks to uphold. It is also a reminder that women in positions of power still face unacceptable levels of hostility, and it is the duty of the judiciary and the legal fraternity to respond with unwavering support and zero tolerance.
Link to the Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N23TIUYdZjeYsnlWy_5_BZgEv2wNHLW/view?usp=drivesdk