Author: Vanshika Verma, University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU
To the Point
High calibre judges and an independent judiciary were essential to the Constitution’s preservation. Prime Minister Nehru believed that ‘the independence of the judiciary has been emphasized in our Constitution and we must guard it as something precious’. High quality justice demanded that the bar as well as bench be intelligent, well educated, and able, that the judicial process be speedy and access to it both fair and affordable to the common man. Courtrooms are emblematic of the rules of law, imbued with procedure, decorum, and hierarchical respect not just between bar and bench but especially towards female judges, who may face gender- based harassment. Despite constitutional mandates and statutory protections, incidents persist where lawyers make sexually explicit remarks, threatening gestures, or offensive language against women on the bench. These incidents erode public trust, threaten judicial independence, and contravene professional ethics. The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while a women judge presiding over court proceedings, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity. It is highlighted that any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability. To trivialise such conduct under the garbage of emotional outburst or momentary lapse is to reflect a patriarchal mindset, one that struggles to respect women in authority and seeks to normalise the unacceptable. This cannot be permitted. Not in law. Not in court. Justice Nagarathna beautifully articulated that, “What is happening today is not about women invading men’s space, but rather dismantling barriers that have unfairly excluded them for generations. Every woman stepping into the courtroom, legislature or boardroom today isn’t expanding her boundaries. She is reclaiming her fair share of this nation’s intellectual and institutional legacy”. It is very vital to respect women’s place and role, and to celebrate their rightful space in every field, whether it’s law, politics, business, or any other profession.
Abstract
This article examines the increasing incidents of verbal abuse, intimidation, and gender-based misconduct by lawyers towards female judges during court proceedings in India. A woman holding a judicial office is made to feel that her authority is conditional on the civility or restraints of others, the very foundation of judicial independence would get shaken. Such acts not only violate professional ethics but also undermine judicial independence and the dignity of the court. The articles explore the legal remedies available under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Bar Council of Indian Rules. It highlights the gap between legal provisions and their enforcement, particularly in protecting women judicial officers from sexist and threatening behaviour in the courtroom. It also emphasizes the broader implications for gender justice and institutional accountability within the legal system.
Use of legal jargon and theoretical lenses
Judicial Independence: Under Articles 50 and 215, any conduct that judicial authority, even threats or insults, must be viewed as contesting democratic norms. Article 50 of Indian constitution affirms the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the state. This defines the separation of power between different organs of government mandating judicial independence in India. Article 50 reinforces the principle of judicial independence, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy by ensuring the judiciary is separate . This independence is vital for women judges to feel safe and respected while discharging their duties. Moreover, Article 215 of Indian Constitution confers that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This power helps in maintaining the dignity and authority of the court, which is crucial for protecting women judges from harassment and disrespect. The power to punish for contempt ensures that individuals who disrespect or undermine the judiciary, including its women judges, are held accountable. This helps in maintaining the integrity and respect of the judicial institution.
Dignitas Curiae: In latin, “dignitas” generally refers to dignity, honor, or worth. It can also encompass the idea of respect and esteem. “Curiae” refers to the court or judicial assembly. In the legal system based on Roman law, dignity was seen as a right of personality and status, and criminal and civil remedies were frequently provided if dignity in the sense was infringed. This legal principle protects judicial dignity and the court’s procedural integrity. Ensuring that women judges have the same opportunities for advancement and professional development as their male counterparts is vital. The Indian Constitution provides for positive efforts to eliminate gender inequality and ensure social, economic, and political justice for all citizens, including women.
Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013: Workplace sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination which violates a women’s fundamental right to equality and right to life, guaranteed under Article 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The POSH Act has been enacted with the objective of preventing and protecting women against workplace sexual harassment and to ensure effective redressal of complaints of sexual harassment. The POSH Act has brought greater awareness to the issue of sexual harassment in the Workplace, including within the judiciary. This increased awareness can lead to a more sensitive and supportive environment for women judges. This Act helps to address the power imbalances that can exist within the judicial system, where judges hold significant authority. Section 2(o) of POSH Act, protects the safety and dignity of all women at workplaces, including those in judiciary. Section 2(o) defines “sexual harassment” which includes unwelcome acts or behaviour like physical contact, advances, demands, or requests for sexual favours, or any other verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile work environment.
The proof
A Delhi Magistrate faced “filthy and abusive language”, outraging the modesty of a woman judicial officer by a male advocate. It was stated that the female force within the judiciary must never be left feeling helpless or as though to be treated at someone else’s pleasure. The bench noted that it is a matter of deep concern that, at times, even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse. They uphold the conviction and sentence of that male advocate, and said that the act attacked the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity.
A former woman judge of a court in Rajasthan wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and alleged being threatened and abused by the lawyers. In the letter written to the CJI recently, the former woman judge alleged that on September 16, 2023, she was posted at a court during which two lawyers assaulted, abused and threatened her.
Legal Framework and Statutory Analysis
Contempt of Court
Article 129 of the Indian Constitution makes the Supreme Court a ‘court of record’ and confers all powers of such a court including the power to punish for its Contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines the powers of Courts for punishing contempt of court and regulates their procedure. It also provides for judges to be tried for Contempt of Court. According to Section 2 of the Act, ‘Contempt of Court’ includes both ‘civil’ and ‘criminal’ contempt. ‘Civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. ‘Criminal contempt’ means the publication of any matter or doing of any 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 proceedings, or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. A contempt of Court is punishable under Section 12 (1) of this act which states that a person who alleged with the Contempt of Court can be punished with simple imprisonment and this imprisonment can extends to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or can be of both type of punishment.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 121 BNS: This section focuses on protecting public servants, including women judges, from physical harm inflicted while they are discharging their duties. It addresses voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to a public servant to deter them from their duties. While not specifically targeting harassment, it provides a legal framework to punish those who physically harm or attempt to harm a judge, thereby contributing to their safety and respect.
Section 74 BNS: This section confers that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less that one year by which may extend to five years and shall liable to fine.
Section 79 BNS: It criminalises the acts, words, or gestures intended to insult the
modesty of women, which could encompass situations involving women judges as well.
Bar Council of India Rules
The Bar Council of India rules, particularly those concerning professional conduct and etiquette, indirectly contribute to the respect and safety of women judges by promoting a respectful and dignified environment in the courtroom. They establish a framework of ethical behaviour that helps prevent harassment and ensures fair treatment for all judicial officers. The BCI rules mandate that advocates maintain a dignified demeanor in court and while interacting with judges. The BCI has the power to take disciplinary action against advocates who violate the rules of professional conduct, including those who exhibit disrespectful or harassing behaviour towards women judges.
Case Laws
In Re: Violence in Karkardooma Court, Delhi, (2015) SCC OnLine SC 1497, a group of lawyers at Karkardooma Court, Delhi, violently stormed the Courtroom, assaulted police personnel, and disrupted judicial proceedings. A female judge, among other judicial officers, was reportedly subjected to intimidation and verbal abuse. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance and issued notice to the Bar Association and lawyers involved. It termed the conduct as a grave threat to judicial independence and dignity.
Asaram Bapu v. State of Gujarat, (2013-2015), during the sexual assault trails of godman Asaram Bapu, female judges presiding over the case were repeatedly threatened, intimidated, and subjected to abuse by his supporters and lawyers. Attempts were made to stall proceedings, and security for the judge was increased. The courts observed that deliberate attempts to delay or harassment judicial officers amount to obstruction of justice and warrant criminal action and contempt proceedings. The case exemplifies systematic intimidation faced by female judicial officers in sensitive cases and the judiciary’s role in protecting them.
R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, Senior advocate R.K. Anand was found guilty of professional misconduct and tampering with the judiciary during the BMW hit-and-run trial. The Supreme Court found the advocate guilty of contempt and professional misconduct and barred him from practice. Though not gender-specific, it sets a strong precedent for disciplinary action against advocates who threaten the sanctity of court proceedings.
Conclusion
The judiciary, as the guardian of constitutional values and the rules of law, cannot function in an atmosphere of fear, hostility, or gendered prejudice. The increasing instances of abuse, intimidation, and verbal harassment of female judicial officers by members of the legal fraternity represent not only a direct attack on individual dignity, but also a systematic threat to judicial independence and the sanctity of the courtroom. These actions, whether subtle in tone or brazen in conduct, erode the very foundation of justice.
Addressing this issue requires a multi- pronged approach:
Strict enforcement of contempt and criminal laws against errant lawyers,
Proactive intervention by the Bar Councils,
Gender-sensitization training for legal professionals, and
The creation of independent complaint redressal bodies within the judiciary to ensure accountability.
FAQS
Q1. What legal remedies are available to female judges facing abuse in court?
Ans: A female judge can file a contempt petition against a lawyer in the High Court or Supreme Court or can lodge a criminal complaint under relevant Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita sections. Can also report the matter to the Bar Council, which may suspend or disbar the advocate under Advocates Act, 1961 and BCI rules.
Q2. Can an advocate be disbarred for verbally abusing a judge?
Ans: Yes, under chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates are bound by strict standards of conduct. Abusing a judge violates these standards and can lead to temporary suspension or permanent disbarment, depending on the severity of the misconduct.
Q3. Is it considered contempt of court to speak harshly or argue strongly before a judge?
Ans: No, merely arguing strongly or passionately is not contempt. However, when language becomes abusive, threatening, or disrespectful, especially towards a female judge, it crosses the line and may amount to scandalising the court under Section 2(c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Q4. Can media reporting on these incidents influence outcomes?
Ans: Media plays a double edged role. While responsible reporting can help raise awareness and bring attention to judicial harassment, sensationalism or trial by media can interfere with due process. Courts have also warned the media to maintain respectful coverage of judicial matters.
Q5. Can a judge take suo moto action in such cases?
Ans: Yes, Judges, especially in Higher Courts, can initiate suo motu contempt proceedings if they witness or become aware of behaviour that undermines the dignity of court. This is commonly invoked in cases of in-court abuse or threats.
