The Delhi High Court has imposed a unique condition while accepting an advocate’s apology in a contempt of court case. Advocate Shivanshu Gunwal, accused of aggressive and disrespectful conduct during a court proceeding, was directed to provide pro bono legal services in at least two cases before the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) at Saket Court. The High Court’s decision highlights the importance of maintaining courtroom decorum while also ensuring legal assistance for those in need.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings stemmed from an incident on November 23, 2024, at the Saket Court, where Gunwal, representing an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) case, displayed unruly behavior. He was accused of aggressively arguing, raising his voice, pointing at the judge, and questioning the judicial wisdom of the court. Despite multiple warnings, he continued his conduct, leading to the disruption of court proceedings.
According to the trial court’s report, Gunwal used confrontational language, including statements like, “You tell me the law” and “Why don’t you convict the accused now itself?” His behavior escalated when he withdrew his vakalatnama (authorization to represent the accused) but remained inside the courtroom with his associates, creating an intimidating atmosphere. He later allegedly threatened to file a complaint against the judge, further aggravating the situation.
Following the incident, the trial court reported the matter to the Delhi High Court, which then took suo motu cognizance and initiated contempt proceedings against Gunwal.
High Court’s Observations and Ruling
During the contempt proceedings, advocate Gunwal appeared before the High Court and tendered an unconditional apology. He expressed regret for his actions and assured the court that it was an isolated incident in his otherwise two-decade-long legal career. He emphasized that he had never before engaged in such behavior and reiterated his respect for the judiciary.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta acknowledged Gunwal’s apology and his long-standing legal career but stressed that lawyers must uphold the dignity and decorum of court proceedings. The Bench emphasized that aggressive behavior and disrespect toward the judiciary would not be tolerated, stating, “Unnecessary aggression and raising of voice in court, which demonstrates disrespect, cannot be tolerated. Lawyers must uphold the dignity of the judicial process.”
While the Court accepted Gunwal’s apology, it imposed a condition for closing the contempt case—he must provide free legal representation in at least two cases before the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) at Saket Court. The cases would be assigned by the presiding judge, ensuring that his legal services would directly benefit those in need.
Significance of the Ruling
The Delhi High Court’s decision serves a dual purpose. First, it reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline and decorum within courtrooms, ensuring that legal professionals conduct themselves with respect. Second, by mandating pro bono legal services, the ruling promotes access to justice for underprivileged individuals involved in sensitive cases under the POCSO Act.
This judgment sets a precedent for dealing with contempt cases involving legal professionals. Instead of imposing punitive measures, the Court chose a reformative approach, ensuring that the lawyer contributes positively to society. The ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ethical legal practice and the broader goal of ensuring justice for vulnerable individuals.
