The Delhi High Court expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of an advocate who appeared before the bench with red tape across his lips during the hearing of a contempt petition. The incident occurred before a division bench comprising Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Anish Dayal. The lawyer stated that the tape symbolised that he had been silenced by the Court in previous hearings, but the bench rejected this justification and held that such conduct was entirely inappropriate in a courtroom setting.
The Court noted that the advocate had more than 25 years of experience at the Bar and was well aware of proper courtroom decorum. His act of walking into the courtroom with red-taped lips and attempting to make a symbolic protest was described by the bench as unbecoming and in poor taste. According to the Court, the behaviour was “unbefitting” of a lawyer of his standing and amounted to a needless display in a judicial proceeding where dignity, discipline, and orderly conduct are essential. The advocate later removed the tape after being confronted by the bench, but the Court still found it necessary to record its displeasure in the order.
The background to the incident involved earlier hearings in which the same advocate’s submissions had been curtailed by the Court. The bench clarified that his arguments were stopped only because they were long and repetitive and because both sides needed to be heard with equal opportunity. It emphasised that controlling proceedings to maintain efficiency does not amount to silencing a party. The Court stated that no counsel can claim an unrestricted right to address the Court for as long as they like, as such conduct can disrupt judicial functioning and prevent timely disposal of cases.
Despite finding the behaviour objectionable, the Court refrained from taking punitive action, noting the advocate’s long career and experience. Nonetheless, it made clear that the gesture was unacceptable and set a poor example for courtroom conduct. The bench reminded the Bar that legal practitioners play a vital role in maintaining the dignity and solemnity of court proceedings and must adhere to professional norms even when they disagree with judicial directions.
The incident arose during the hearing of a contempt petition in which the Court was examining compliance with earlier orders. The petitioners had alleged that they had been denied the relief previously granted by the Court, prompting the bench to consider initiating contempt proceedings against senior officers of the State. During the hearing, the State Government submitted a fresh proposal in response to the issues raised. The Court granted time for this proposal to be placed on record through an affidavit filed by senior officials.
The bench also allowed the petitioners to file a rejoinder after perusing the State’s affidavit. The matter was then listed for further consideration, with the Court directing both sides to complete their pleadings. While the substantive issues in the contempt petition remain to be adjudicated, the Court’s sharp remarks regarding the lawyer’s conduct underscore the expectation that members of the Bar must observe decorum, respect judicial authority, and avoid theatrical displays inconsistent with the seriousness of judicial proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.