In a striking case testing the limits of judicial authority and contempt jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court examined whether acts of intimidation and obstruction towards a Court-appointed Local Commissioner could amount to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter raised a significant question- Can an act committed during the execution of judicial orders, intended to impede the administration of justice, be treated as interference with the majesty of the Court itself? Read on to discover how the Court addressed this serious breach of judicial decorum and reinforced the sanctity of the justice system.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from an arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection against the disposal of industrial coal belonging to a partnership firm. The Single Judge had restrained the respondent from dealing with firm assets, but following alleged violations, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises with police assistance if required. During the execution of the commission, one of the respondent’s associates allegedly obstructed proceedings, behaved aggressively, recorded the inspection without consent, and threatened the Commissioner by placing an unlicensed firearm on the table. The Commissioner’s report recorded non-cooperation and intimidation, leading the Single Judge to find a prima facie case of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for interference with the administration of justice, and to refer the matter to the Division Bench for further action.
Contention of Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu pursuant to the reference made by the Single Judge, drawing attention to the Local Commissioner’s report, which recorded that the respondent’s associate had been rude and uncooperative, recorded the proceedings without authority, and placed a pistol on the table in an attempt to intimidate and obstruct the execution. It was submitted that such conduct amounted to interference with the Court’s officer and the administration of justice, thereby constituting criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contentions of Respondent:
The Respondent submitted that he had fully cooperated with the Local Commissioner and had neither influenced nor obstructed the inspection process. The counsel of the Respondent asserted that the allegations of brandishing a pistol to intimidate were false and misconceived, explaining that the object in question was merely a toy gun kept to deter stray animals, which had been lying on the office table prior to the inspection and was mistakenly perceived as a firearm. Emphasizing his status as a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record, the Respondent contended that he could not have indulged in such reckless conduct and therefore prayed for the contempt proceedings to be dropped.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta emphasized the sanctity of contempt jurisdiction in upholding judicial authority and the administration of justice. Defining criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court reproduced Section 2(c), which provides that ‘criminal contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which, (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
The Court emphasised while referring to the Supreme Court’s precedent passed in the case of Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, “The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined.” It further noted the quasi-criminal nature requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, with 'wilful' implying “knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences,” excluding accidental or bona fide acts.
Further while referring to the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, the Court highlighted, “The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.”
While rejecting the Respondent’s claim that the object was merely a toy gun, the Bench personally examined the seized item and confirmed it to be “a real air gun” and not a toy. The Court characterised the defence as “a false, misleading plea and was taken only to pull wool over the eyes of the Court.” The Bench reiterated that a Local Commissioner is an extension of the Court itself, and any act of obstruction or intimidation towards the Commissioner constitutes interference with the administration of justice. Observing the Respondent’s aggressive demeanour, non-cooperation, and placement of the gun during the inspection, the Court held that it reflected a deliberate attempt with evil motive towards the interference in the administration of justice. The Respondent’s unconditional apology was rejected as “nothing but a lip service” and not “meaningful, genuine and bona fide.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court found the Respondent guilty of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a further 15 days’ imprisonment in case of default. While the police were initially directed to take the Respondent into custody from the Court, the Bench, considering his plea citing a family wedding, allowed him to surrender voluntarily before the Jail Superintendent on 6th November 2025.
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Nitin Bansal
Case No: CONT.CAS.(CRL) 16/2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon’ble Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Advocate for Petitioner: None
Advocate for Respondent: Sr. Adv. M.C. Dhingra, Advs. Nihal Ahmad, H. R. Khan, and Kashif Salman
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
