The Karnataka High Court has sentenced advocate Pankaj Kaushik to one day of simple imprisonment, limited to the “rising of the Court,” after finding him guilty of contempt of court for repeatedly disrupting judicial proceedings, appearing in an inebriated condition before a magistrate and making scandalous and baseless allegations against judicial officers. The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T delivered the judgment on September 11, 2026, in High Court of Karnataka v. Pankaj Kaushik. Apart from the imprisonment, the High Court also imposed costs of ₹2,000 on the advocate.
The contempt proceedings arose from incidents that occurred in April 2022 before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at the Karwar District and Sessions Court. At the relevant time, Kaushik was appearing as a party-in-person in a domestic violence case instituted against him by his wife. The proceedings before the High Court were initiated suo motu after the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, communicated the incidents to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court. The communications brought to the High Court's attention conduct which the subordinate judiciary considered seriously disruptive and inappropriate for court proceedings.
The first incident occurred in April 2022 when Kaushik appeared before the Judicial Magistrate in connection with the domestic violence proceedings. According to the report sent by the District and Sessions Judge, the case was not listed for hearing on that particular day. Despite this, Kaushik allegedly became agitated and shouted at the magistrate because his matter was not being heard. He also reportedly confronted the bench clerk and questioned why his case had not been called. The Court proceedings were consequently disrupted by his conduct.
The allegations did not stop with the disruption of proceedings. Kaushik was also alleged to have accused the magistrate of accepting bribes from his wife in order to pass orders in her favour in the domestic violence proceedings. Such allegations were treated by the High Court as serious because they were made against a judicial officer without any substantiated basis. The report concerning the incident also referred to defamatory or scandalous statements allegedly made by Kaushik against judges of the High Court. The District and Sessions Judge documented the incident in a communication dated April 8, 2022, which was subsequently forwarded to the Registrar General.
Three days after the first incident, Kaushik submitted an apology letter to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar. In the letter, he expressed regret over his conduct and requested that the complaint against him be withdrawn. However, the matter did not end with that apology. On April 22, 2022, another incident occurred in the courtroom, in which Kaushik again disrupted proceedings while a senior counsel was making submissions. The High Court later relied on the recurrence of the conduct while considering whether his actions amounted to contempt.
During the second incident, Kaushik allegedly interrupted the senior counsel and told him to stop arguing so that his own matter could be taken up. His tone was described as disrespectful. Even after the presiding judge intervened, he allegedly continued shouting at persons present in the courtroom. The conduct resulted in further disruption of the judicial proceedings and prompted the authorities to take additional steps to document the incident and report it to the High Court.
A significant aspect of the second incident was Kaushik's physical condition when he appeared before the court. Following the courtroom incident, he was taken to the Civil Hospital at Karwar, where he was found to be in an inebriated condition. A Certificate of Drunkenness was subsequently issued by the hospital. A second communication was then sent by the Principal District and Sessions Judge to the High Court, recording the circumstances and the medical finding. These communications ultimately became the basis for the High Court's suo motu contempt proceedings against the advocate.
When the contempt proceedings were considered by the High Court, Kaushik disputed the allegations and sought to explain his conduct. He denied that he was intoxicated during the first incident and questioned the relevance of the drunkenness certificate, contending that it had been obtained on a later date. He also alleged that the contempt proceedings had been initiated with an intention to harass him. His defence therefore sought to challenge both the factual basis of the allegations and the circumstances in which the contempt proceedings had been initiated.
Kaushik also referred to his medical condition while responding to the contempt proceedings. He stated that he suffered from epilepsy and occasionally experienced strokes and fits. The High Court, however, examined the material placed before it and concluded that the defence did not adequately explain the conduct that had been recorded by the subordinate judicial authorities. The Court ultimately held that the charges against him had been proved.
The High Court attached particular importance to the manner in which Kaushik behaved inside the courtroom. The Bench concluded that his conduct was not merely an isolated instance of inappropriate courtroom behaviour. According to the Court, the repeated interruptions, shouting, allegations against judicial officers and the overall manner in which he addressed members of the judiciary demonstrated contempt for the authority of the court and the judicial system.
The Bench described the allegations made against judicial officers as “scurrilous, scandalous and baseless” and found that the conduct amounted to aggravated contempt committed in the face of the Court. The Court also considered his subsequent response to the proceedings. Rather than finding genuine remorse, the Bench concluded that he had attempted to justify his actions while continuing to make serious allegations against members of the judiciary. This was an important factor in the Court's decision on sentence.
The Court's reasoning reflected the importance attached to maintaining the authority and orderly functioning of judicial proceedings. Courtrooms operate through structured procedures in which parties and advocates are expected to address judges respectfully and comply with directions regarding the conduct of proceedings. The High Court found that the conduct in question went beyond ordinary disagreement with a judicial order or frustration over a matter not being heard. It involved repeated disruption and allegations attacking the integrity of judicial officers.
The Bench observed that Kaushik's conduct was deliberate and persistent. It stated that his behaviour revealed what it considered to be disregard for social, moral and judicial codes of conduct. The Court further expressed concern that failure to impose an appropriate sanction in such circumstances could encourage repetition of similar conduct and adversely affect the rule of law and functioning of the judicial system. The sentencing decision was therefore linked not only to the individual incidents but also to the need to protect the authority of judicial proceedings.
The High Court consequently convicted Kaushik for contempt and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one day, specifically until the rising of the Court. A sentence “till the rising of the Court” means that the imprisonment is limited to the period during which the Court remains in session on that day. In addition to the imprisonment, the Bench imposed costs of ₹2,000 for his misconduct.
The judgment is significant because the Court did not treat the advocate's conduct merely as an issue of professional etiquette. The findings were made in the context of contempt jurisdiction, where conduct that obstructs or scandalises the administration of justice can attract judicial sanctions. The High Court's conclusion that the accusations against judges were baseless and that the courtroom behaviour amounted to aggravated contempt formed the foundation for the sentence.
Another important feature of the case is that Kaushik was appearing as a party-in-person in the domestic violence proceedings filed by his wife. His status as an advocate did not give him a separate right to disregard courtroom discipline while representing himself. The contempt proceedings arose from his conduct as a participant in the judicial process, and the High Court assessed his behaviour in that context.
The proceedings also demonstrate the role of subordinate judicial authorities in reporting serious incidents occurring in courtrooms. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, communicated the incidents to the High Court through formal letters. Those communications led to the suo motu initiation of contempt proceedings, allowing the High Court to examine the conduct independently rather than leaving the matter solely to the discretion of the individual magistrate who had been subjected to the alleged behaviour.
The case also illustrates the distinction between legitimate criticism of judicial decisions and allegations that attack the integrity of judges without substantiation. A litigant or advocate may disagree with an order and can ordinarily challenge it through legally recognised remedies. However, the High Court found that accusing a magistrate of accepting bribes, coupled with repeated courtroom disruption and disrespectful conduct, crossed the line into contemptuous behaviour in the circumstances of this case.
Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court found that Pankaj Kaushik's conduct in April 2022 constituted contempt of court. The Court took into account the repeated disruptions, the allegations against judicial officers, the finding that he had appeared in an inebriated condition during the second incident, and what it considered an absence of genuine remorse. It therefore imposed one day of simple imprisonment until the rising of the Court along with ₹2,000 in costs.
The judgment sends a clear judicial message about maintaining decorum in court proceedings. The sentence was imposed not simply because the advocate was alleged to have consumed alcohol, but because the High Court found a combination of conduct—including repeated disruption of proceedings, disrespectful behaviour and baseless allegations against judicial officers—to constitute aggravated contempt. The decision consequently places the emphasis on preserving the authority of courts and ensuring that proceedings are conducted in an orderly and respectful manner.
The ruling in High Court of Karnataka v. Pankaj Kaushik therefore represents a significant contempt decision concerning courtroom conduct by an advocate appearing in person. By imposing imprisonment, even for a single day, together with costs, the Karnataka High Court underscored the seriousness with which it viewed conduct that, in its assessment, undermined judicial authority and disrupted the administration of justice. The judgment ultimately reinforces the principle that participation in court proceedings carries obligations of discipline and respect, and that serious violations can result in contempt sanctions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.