The Supreme Court slammed UP SHO Gulaab Singh Sonkar for violating its protective order and assaulting a petitioner. When shown the Court’s order, he arrogantly said, “Main kisi Supreme Court ka aadesh nahin manunga, mai tumhara sara High Court aur Supreme Court nikal dunga aaj.”
The Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh Police Officer Gulaab Singh Sonkar, the Station House Officer of Kandhai Police Station in Pratapgarh, for willfully disregarding the Court’s protective order and assaulting a petitioner.
This conduct occurred despite explicit directives prohibiting any coercive actions.
A bench consisting of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was addressing a contempt petition that alleged the SHO had arrested and assaulted the petitioner on April 23, 2025, in clear violation of a prior Court order issued on March 28, 2025.
The petition further claimed that when the petitioner presented a copy of the Supreme Court’s order, the SHO audaciously responded in Hindi,
“Main kisi Supreme Court ka aadesh nahin manunga, mai tumhara sara High Court aur Supreme Court nikal dunga aaj” (“I will not obey any Supreme Court order; I’ll get your entire High Court and Supreme Court removed today”).
The Court expressed serious concern over the SHO’s comments and his blatant disrespect for judicial authority, labeling the behavior as a severe contempt of court and a direct affront to the rule of law.
The bench recalled that it had previously instructed the Uttar Pradesh Home Department to carry out an independent investigation by an officer of no lesser rank than ADGP.
Upon reviewing the Government’s inquiry report, which substantiated the SHO’s intentional disobedience, the Court stated,
“Prima facie, there is willful disobedience of the Order of the Court by the first respondent, which requires to be dealt with iron hands and cannot be condoned under the guise of the police uniform.”
The bench remarked that,
“The officer’s actions had polluted the stream of justice, and such conduct undermines public trust in the judicial system.”
While the Court was inclined to impose strict punitive measures against the SHO, it acknowledged the assurance from the Additional Advocate General that the State Government would take prompt action based on the inquiry findings.
The Court granted a limited timeframe for compliance and scheduled the matter for a hearing on November 7, 2025, directing the State to report on the actions taken.
The order stated,
“At this juncture, the learned AAG appearing for respondent no.2 Principal Secretary, Department of Home & Confidential, Government of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that in light of the inquiry report, the State Government will act immediately and apprise this Court of the action taken by the next date of hearing. For this purpose, accommodation is sought. Re-list this matter on 07.11.2025,”
The law governing contempt petitions in India is laid down under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India.
Article 129 empowers the Supreme Court, and Article 215 empowers every High Court, to act as a court of record and punish for its own contempt.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines two types of contempt civil and criminal. Civil contempt, under Section 2(b), means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, order, writ, or direction of a court, or a deliberate breach of an undertaking given to the court.
Criminal contempt, under Section 2(c), refers to any act or publication that scandalises or lowers the authority of the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
As per Section 12 of the Act, the punishment for contempt may include simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to Rs.2,000, or both.