A Delhi courtroom turned hostile earlier this month when a man, who had been convicted in a cheque bounce case, along with his lawyer, allegedly hurled abuses and threats at a woman judge after she delivered a ruling against him. The shocking outburst occurred before Judicial Magistrate Shivangi Mangla, who had on April 2 convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a law that governs the dishonor of cheques. Following the conviction, the judge directed the accused to furnish bail bonds in line with Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
However, what followed was a disturbing escalation of events. The convict, enraged by the verdict, reportedly attempted to throw an object at the judge, leading to heightened tension in the courtroom. In an unprecedented move, the accused allegedly instructed his lawyer, Advocate Atul Kumar, to "do whatever it takes" to reverse the ruling in his favor. In a shocking verbal assault, the convicted man also threatened the judge with physical harm, reportedly saying, "Tu hai kya cheez tu bahar mil dekhte hai kaise zinda ghar jaati hail", which roughly translates to, "Who even are you? Meet me outside and let's see how you make it back home alive."
This alarming verbal attack prompted Justice Mangla to document the incident thoroughly in her official order. She expressed that not only had the accused threatened her, but both he and his lawyer had subjected her to mental and physical harassment in an attempt to intimidate her into reversing the conviction. Despite the aggressive nature of the threats, Judge Mangla stood firm and resolute, emphasizing that appropriate legal action would be pursued to protect the sanctity of the judicial process and ensure that such conduct did not go unchecked.
In her official order, Judge Mangla stated that she would be taking "appropriate measures" against the accused, including addressing the issue before the National Commission for Women (NCW). She further highlighted the severity of the situation by issuing a show-cause notice to the convict's lawyer, Atul Kumar, instructing him to explain his actions and conduct in writing. The judge questioned why the lawyer should not be referred to the Delhi High Court for criminal contempt in light of his inappropriate and threatening behavior toward her in the courtroom.
The legal ramifications for Advocate Kumar could be significant, as his behavior not only undermines the integrity of the court but also jeopardizes the safety and well-being of judges who are responsible for upholding justice. This case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges that judges, particularly women, can face when confronted with hostile defendants and aggressive legal representation.
The lawyer has been given a timeline to submit his response, with the next hearing scheduled for a later date. This episode has sparked widespread concern in the legal community, as it raises critical questions about the safety of judges and the need for stricter measures to protect judicial officials from intimidation, harassment, or threats. The court's firm stance on this matter demonstrates that such behavior will not be tolerated and that appropriate action will be taken to maintain the integrity of the legal system.
This case also draws attention to the broader issue of judicial independence and the pressures faced by judges in the face of public and private attempts to influence or manipulate the legal process. Justice Mangla's steadfast approach in handling this case sets an important precedent in ensuring that the judiciary remains free from intimidation, while also sending a strong message to individuals who may seek to disrupt or undermine the judicial process for personal gain.
Ultimately, this incident is a reminder of the delicate balance that judges must maintain as they navigate the complexities of the law, while also safeguarding their own safety and security in the face of rising hostility. The courts’ actions in addressing this issue are crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the justice system operates without fear or favor.
