Nagpur Bench holds advocates guilty of criminal contempt for intimidating judicial magistrate during warrant proceedings, rejects belated apology, and orders disciplinary action
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench, Division Bench) found two advocates-Sagar Durgadas Rathod and his son-guilty of criminal contempt of court for threatening and intimidating a judicial officer in open court. The contemnors had attempted to coerce the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arni during the hearing of a criminal case by insisting on the cancellation of a warrant and by making scandalous allegations against the judge when their demands were refused.
The case arose from proceedings in a criminal case (RCC No.213/2019) where bailable and later non-bailable warrants were issued against accused persons due to their absence. The advocate representing one accused insisted on the cancellation of the warrant even though the accused was not present in court. Upon denial, he shouted "HINDI MATTER" and made unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against the judicial officer. Subsequently, the President of the Arni Taluka Court Bar Association also entered the court, directed threatening remarks towards the judge, and compounded the misconduct.
The judicial officer, Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid, referred the matter to the High Court as a criminal contempt reference petition. The Court noted the advocates' conduct as a serious interference with the administration of justice and a clear attempt to intimidate the judicial officer from performing his duties fearlessly.
Despite repeated notices and the issuance of bailable warrants for their appearance, the contemnors delayed participation in the proceedings and tendered an apology only after court intervention and coercive measures. The Court held that such belated apologies, made not out of genuine contrition but under pressure, need not be accepted.
Citing the Supreme Court's authoritative decisions, including the landmark Prashant Bhushan case, the Bombay High Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction protects not only the reputation of judges but also the fair name of the judiciary itself. The Court observed that the legal profession is noble and advocates must maintain dignity, decorum, and respect towards the judiciary. It underscored that lawyers cannot browbeat, intimidate, or malign judicial officers to secure favorable orders.
Although the contemnors were found guilty, the Court exercised judicial discretion in sentencing. Instead of imprisonment, it imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 each and costs of Rs. 50,000 each to be paid to the Public Welfare Account. Furthermore, the Court directed the matter to be referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate disciplinary action against the advocates.
This judgment reinforces the sanctity of judicial proceedings and sends a stern message that attempts to obstruct justice through threats or intimidation will attract penal consequences. It also reiterates that apologies tendered late and without sincerity cannot absolve advocates from the consequences of professional misconduct and contempt.
Bottom Line:
Criminal contempt - Advocates threatened and intimidated Judicial Officer in open Court while pressing for cancellation of warrant and recording of evidence - Such conduct amounts to interference with administration of justice and scandalising the Court - Belated apology, tendered only after coercive steps and Court's intervention, need not be accepted - Fine, costs and reference to Bar Council for disciplinary action justified.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 2(c), 12; Advocates Act, 1961 Section 35; Constitution of India Article 215
