Delhi High Court objects to lawyer creating scene in court, interrupting judge

The Delhi High Court on Monday recorded its objection to a lawyer for continuously interrupting the dictation of an order in a case and asked him to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him for such conduct [Mrs. Shalini Singh v. United Insurance Company Limited and Ors.].

Justice Girish Kathpalia recounted that the lawyer, Advocate Ravi Kumar, who had appeared as counsel for the petitioner in a case, did not let the Court dictate its order by making continuous interruptions.

The interruptions led the judge to finish the order dictation in his chambers, the November 4 order said.

"The counsel for petitioner is not permitting me to dictate this order and continues interrupting. As such, the order shall be passed in chamber. At request of counsel for petitioner, it is made clear that this application is not being dismissed today, but since he continues interrupting, further dictation has to be in the chamber", the Court observed.

Further, the judge noted that despite warning that such conduct would amount to contempt of Court, the lawyer continued to interrupt the proceedings.

"I feel constrained to contemplate appropriate action. Therefore, opportunity is granted to learned counsel for petitioner to address on the next date as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him," the Court proceeded to order.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Kumar's client (petitioner) against United Insurance Company (UIC) Limited and others associated with the company, objecting to the petitioner's removal from the company.

In an application filed in this case, the petitioner had sought directions to restrain a UIC employee from continuing in her role as General Manager (HR) or from having direct control over certain company functions, due to her (the respondent-employee's) alleged involvement in malpractice and corruption.

While considering the application, the Court had posed some queries to advocate Kumar. It asked him to clarify the nature of the relief sought in the plea and the source and relevance of the allegations made against the respondents.

It also asked Kumar to explain why an allegation that the respondents (UIC and those in the company) paid over ₹2 crores to their lawyers should not be treated as "scandalous and irrelevant."

It noted that Kumar, instead of responding to the Court's queries, created a scene by making interruptions to the extent that the judge was forced to complete dictating his order in his chambers.

Kumar was, therefore, directed to explain his conduct when the matter is taken up next for hearing on January 9, 2025.

[Read Order]