Reinforcing the supremacy of judiciary, the Supreme Court in a judgment on maintaining the decorum in the court during the proceedings of a case has ruled that no one was allowed to “intimidate” judges and they are not expected to function like “robots” while defining the law as they also are men with hearts and feelings.

“The courts cannot be intimidated to seek the favourable orders,” a bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said while sentencing a lawyer from Uttar Pradesh for three months’ imprisonment for hurling filthy abuses on a trial court judge in Etawah when he questioned him for presenting a wrong person before him “impersonating” for the real accused 12 years ago. Rejecting the appeal of advocate V.S. Raghubanshi against his conviction for contempt of court by the Allahabad high court, the bench reminded him how he had “stepped” on the dais of the courtroom and hurled “choicest” abuses on the judicial magistrate when he questioned him for his illegal act of deliberately presenting a wrong accused.
“Raghubanshi has been of the view that the judicial officer was a robot and has no heart at all, thus incapable of having the feelings of being hurt (by the use of filthy language),” the bench in its verdict recorded.
In order to send a stern warning to errant lawyers, the top court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Etawah to direct the police to take Raghubanshi in custody forthwith and send him behind the bar to serve the sentence.
“Such attitude has a direct impact on courts’ independence, dignity and decorum. In order to protect the administration of justice, we must take action as his conduct and utterances cannot be ignored or pardoned,” the apex court said rejecting his apology.
The top court said that the action of the lawyer was a clear attempt to “intimidate” the presiding judge to accept his illegal action and when he was questioned for this, instead of showing any “remorse”, he hurled “filthiest abuses” on him and in the process lowered the authority of the court, which “is tantamount to interfere with the justice delivery system”.
His conduct was in complete violation of the Bar Council of India rules and standard of professional conduct and etiquette laid down for an advocate. The BCI rules say that a lawyer “shall maintain a respectful attitude towards the court and protect the dignity of the judicial officer.”
The apex court, however, said that the law on contempt was never aimed at curbing the constructive criticism of judiciary as there might be instances where a litigant or a lawyer was aggrieved of the “misbehaviour or conduct” of a judicial officer and in such a situation, the aggrieved person “definitely” has a right to raise the issue as per the law before the appropriate forum.
“But under no circumstances, a person can be permitted to become the law unto himself and proceed in the manner he wishes, as it would put at stake the very existence of the entire judicial system,” the apex court said.

Raghubanshi had moved the apex court after the long drawn proceedings before the High Court, which had found him guilty of the contempt of court.