The Delhi High Court framed criminal contempt charges against a Delhi advocate for scandalous allegations in court and a similar LinkedIn post. The court said he lowered its authority and interfered with judicial proceedings by uploading the post.
The Delhi High Court framed charges of criminal contempt against a Delhi-based advocate for making scandalous allegations about a judge during court proceedings and later posting similar remarks on LinkedIn.
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja invoked the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to frame the charge.
The court said,
“We frame the charge that during the course of hearing of FIR wherein you are a party in person, you had raised your voice and used unparliamentary language in open court against the court and further levelled scandalous allegations by saying that the court is working in collusion with the accused persons,”
The bench said the advocate repeatedly used unparliamentary language and refused to maintain courtroom decorum despite several warnings, thereby diminishing the authority of the court.
The court added,
“By the above act, you have lowered the authority of the court and tried to interfere with the judicial proceedings and administration of justice. You have uploaded the said LinkedIn post, thereby scandalising the authority of the court and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice, thereby committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,”
The court recorded a prima facie finding that evidence suggested the LinkedIn account that posted the remarks was operated by the advocate and her brother.
The court noted,
“The post by itself has scandalous remarks against the judicial officer. We asked her to justify, however, she maintains that as the post is not uploaded by her, she does not own to the same and the question of justification does not arise,”
The bench also observed it was “curious” that the LinkedIn account was closed on January 29, 2026 — the same day the court directed the Delhi Police’s Cyber Cell and LinkedIn Corporation to disclose the identity behind the post.
The contempt petition stemmed from a reference dated March 26, 2025, made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class to the High Court’s Registrar General.
The High Court pointed out the reference arose from proceedings before the judicial officer in which the advocate, appearing in person, had raised her voice, used unparliamentary language and accused the court of colluding with the opposing party.
Before issuing its order, the court sought an explanation from the advocate,
“Prima facie we have enough evidence to now frame charge against you. Once charge is framed, then evidence will be made. The post is in your name, from an account that is being linked to you by the IP address, through mobile service provider. Please tell us why charge should not be framed against you.”
Justice Dudeja remarked,
“Even otherwise also, overwhelming circumstances are there.“
The advocate denied ownership of the LinkedIn post.
She told the court,
“I never denied that I have a LinkedIn account. I am saying that multiple accounts can be created by the same name,”
Justice Chawla replied,
“That will come in evidence, we will ask them how multiple accounts can use same IP address.”
The lawyer sought to explain her conduct by saying the judge was giving long adjournments and she had merely asked to be heard, which prompted an outburst from the bench.
She said,
“I am suffering, my family is suffering. I was also fed-up. I was only requesting [to be heard], suddenly he outbursted (sic). I said only one thing, ‘Aap judicial officer hoke aise baat karte hain, aapke judicial academy me yahi sikhate hain? (How can you talk like this as a judicial officer? Is this what is taught in the judicial academy?) I did not shout at him, I did not abuse him. I was only frustrated. Maybe I raised my voice that’s why he reacted. I don’t know about the LinkedIn post,”
The bench observed that the very altercation with the judicial officer amounted to contempt.
Justice Chawla said,
“Be that as it may, you are not apologising, you are maintaining that you are entitled to fight with the judicial officer,”
The court directed the advocate to file her written reply to the charge within four weeks and to provide a copy to amicus curiae Harsh Prabhakar. She was also ordered to appear in person at the next hearing on May 26.
Harsh Prabhakar assisted the court as amicus curiae. The advocate appeared in person.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
