In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has discharged twelve lawyers, including former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla and former Delhi Bar Association President Sanjeev Nashiar, in connection with a suo motu criminal contempt case related to the violence at the Tis Hazari Court in 2006.
A full bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta pronounced the order after thoroughly examining the evidence and video footage of the incident. The court observed that there was no substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, acts of manhandling, or destruction of property by the lawyers during the protest.
The incident, which occurred in January 2006, saw lawyers agitating against the shifting of certain court cases from Tis Hazari to Rohini, leading to violent clashes. Reports indicated that lawyers hurled chairs, damaged computers, and caused destruction to courtrooms.
After taking cognizance of the violence, a full court of the Delhi High Court acted upon the report filed by the then District Judge SN Dhingra, ordering strict action against the lawyers involved. Subsequently, contempt of court proceedings were initiated against 25 lawyers allegedly involved in the incident.
During the course of the proceedings, thirteen lawyers were previously discharged, leaving twelve lawyers facing criminal contempt charges. However, the recent order from the Delhi High Court has now discharged the remaining alleged contemnors, citing a lack of direct evidence linking them to the acts of vandalism and violence.
The court stated that a careful perusal of the video footage revealed no evidence connecting the damage caused to the courtrooms with the lawyers' protest. Additionally, the videos did not provide any evidence of advocates manhandling their colleagues or obstructing the administration of justice, further supporting the decision to discharge the lawyers.
The bench emphasized that while criticism of judicial decisions is permissible, it must remain respectful and not transform into abusive or irrational attacks on judges. Contempt of court, it said, is meant to shield the institution from unwarranted interference in the administration of justice and preserve the dignity of the judiciary.
The judges expressed their deepest gratitude to Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who served as the amicus curiae in the case, for his valuable assistance throughout the proceedings.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
