“Paper apology”: that is how the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court described the unconditional apologies of a father and son, both advocates, as it found Two Lawyers Guilty Of Contempt for shouting at a Judicial Magistrate and threatening him in open court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Nagpur: Advocates Sagar Durgadas Rathod and his father Durgadas D Rathod have been held guilty of criminal contempt by the Bombay High Court at Nagpur for threatening a trial judge inside an open courtroom, with each fined Rs 2,000, directed to deposit Rs 50,000 as costs, and the matter referred to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for disciplinary action [Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid v. Sagar Rathod and Another].
The Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj D Wakode held that threatening judicial officers and shouting inside a courtroom is grave misconduct, and that lawyers who obstruct the judicial process cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.
Why the apologies did not work
Both advocates had offered unconditional apologies. The Bench saw them as a calculated tactic to avoid legal consequences and stressed that belated or insincere excuses cannot erase contemptuous conduct.
“Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow; there is no remorse; no regret; no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigour of the law. Such an apology can merely be termed as ‘paper apology'”
Intimidation of this kind, the Court observed, demoralises judges and undermines the administration of justice.
Fines, costs and a referral
Each contemnor must pay a fine of Rs 2,000 within two weeks and deposit Rs 50,000 as costs into the public welfare account of the High Court. The Bench also sent the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for necessary action.
A warrant, a demand and a shouting match
The episode dates to 2021, in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Arni, where the senior Rathod was then President of the Arni Bar Association. The Magistrate had issued a non-bailable warrant against an absent accused. The senior Rathod asked for the warrant to be cancelled without the accused being produced, and when the judicial officer refused, both lawyers shouted inside the courtroom and threatened the Magistrate with corruption complaints. The Magistrate referred the incident to the High Court for criminal contempt proceedings.
“Interference in the administration of justice by giving threats, addressing the judicial officer in loud voice and prohibiting him from passing orders are definitely serious acts. More so, when such acts have been done by an advocate who is the officer of the Court, he should promote and see that all others who are present should also maintain the decorum of the Court. Obstruction in judicial process by an advocate cannot be tolerated”
What the ruling signals
Advocates, as officers of the court, are held to a higher standard of courtroom conduct, and the judgment treats a lawyer’s status as an aggravating factor, not a shield, when a judicial officer is threatened or prevented from passing orders.
Its handling of apologies is equally notable: a plea of remorse is tested for sincerity and timing, and a “paper apology” tendered only to avoid punishment will not purge contempt. The reference to the Bar Council opens a separate professional-conduct track alongside the court’s penalty.
Case Title: Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid v. Sagar Rathod and Another
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj D Wakode, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
Judgment uploaded: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Advocate JM Gandhi as amicus curiae; Advocate Rahul Mirza for Sagar Rathod; Advocates SP Bhandarkar and Atharva Khadse for Durgadas Rathod