There was a time when stepping into a courtroom inspired awe and respect. The black robe symbolized authority—not of force, but of justice; not of fear, but of fairness. Today, that very sanctity is being trampled upon, not just by hardened criminals, but by a rising breed of audacious minds who believe that intimidation can bend justice.
When Fearlessness Turns to Fury—A Wake-Up Call for Our Judiciary
The incident in M/S Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj Singh (2025) is not an isolated outrage. It is part of a disturbing pattern—a loud, growing chorus of courtroom contempt where convicts erupt with threats, violence, and filth. They no longer wait for the system to hear them; they try to overpower it. With each insult hurled, each object thrown, and each judge intimidated, the pillars of our democracy tremble ever so slightly.
But who is enabling this bravado? It is the same toxic mindset that emboldened a sitting MP like Ramesh Bidhuri to spew communal slurs on the floor of the Lok Sabha, unchecked, unapologetic. When institutions tolerate hatred, disrespect, and power-drunk arrogance in one arena, it spills over into others—including the judiciary.
The judiciary is not just a dispute resolution forum. It is society’s last fortress. And if even judges—those meant to fearlessly uphold the Constitution—are forced to look over their shoulders for safety, what hope remains for the rest of us?
This is a moment of reckoning. The growing impunity of offenders cannot be allowed to fester into an epidemic. The courts must rise not only to punish these offenders, but to reclaim their space as secure, sacred chambers of justice. Our legal system must send an unshakable message: that no amount of shouting, threatening, or bullying will shake the resolve of a judge, nor will it shake the foundation of justice itself.
Let this article be more than just a case analysis. Let it be a call to action—for bar councils, for lawmakers, for civil society—to shield our courts and empower our judges to stand taller, louder, and stronger.
This article critically analyses the implications of the incident on the rule of law, judicial independence, courtroom decorum, and the necessity for robust contempt jurisprudence.
Background of the Case
The case was pending for over five years and pertained to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, a criminal provision dealing with the dishonour of cheques. The court, after thoroughly hearing arguments and reviewing written submissions, convicted the accused. However, rather than complying with the due process of law, the accused reacted violently in open court, unleashing a barrage of threats, abuses, and even attempted physical assault on the judicial officer.
The Incident: A Breakdown of Decorum
As recorded in the judicial order, upon hearing the judgment, the accused erupted in anger. He hurled offensive comments at the judge in Hindi, including derogatory references to the judge’s family. The situation escalated when the accused allegedly attempted to hurl an object at the presiding officer and ordered his advocate to do “anything” to get a favourable judgment.
The behaviour intensified with threats such as “tu hai kya cheez…bahar mil, dekhte hain kaise zinda ghar jaati hai”—a chilling insinuation of violence.
Worse still, the counsel for the accused allegedly joined the accused in mentally and physically harassing the judge, including forcing her to resign and threatening to file false complaints. This blatant display of courtroom contempt marks a grave affront to the institution of justice and the physical and mental safety of judicial officers.
Legal Context: Contempt of Court and Judicial Protection
Contempt Jurisprudence in India
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 classifies contempt into civil and criminal categories. Criminal contempt, defined under Section 2(c), includes acts that scandalise or lower the authority of the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.
The incident in Raj Singh squarely falls under criminal contempt. It is not merely a disruption but a direct and violent obstruction of justice aimed at coercing the judge to reverse a lawful conviction.
Judicial Precedents
The Supreme Court in Arundhati Roy v. Union of India (2002) and In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) emphasised the need to uphold the dignity of courts and punish those who attempt to derail justice through intimidation or scandalous behaviour.
Moreover, in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009), the Court held that advocates have to maintain the decorum of the court, and any attempt to subvert the administration of justice by manipulating legal proceedings would invite strict action.
Role and Responsibility of Advocates
The allegations against the defence counsel signify a gross violation of professional ethics under the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 1 of Chapter II, Part VI mandates advocates to uphold the dignity of the judicial office. Joining hands with a client to intimidate a judge violates not only the trust reposed in the legal profession but also the foundational norms of adversarial justice.
The advocate in such a situation becomes liable not only for criminal contempt but also for disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Judicial Protection and Mental Health
This incident also opens up critical conversations about the safety and mental well-being of judges, especially those at the trial court level. Often presiding in relatively insecure environments with little public visibility, these judges shoulder enormous responsibility with inadequate systemic protection.
There is a need for:
- Immediate deployment of courtroom security with the ability to prevent and respond to such events;
- Counselling and psychological support services for judicial officers facing trauma or harassment;
- Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for emergency measures when a judge is threatened.
Gendered Abuse and Institutional Response
The language used by the accused—targeting the judge’s mother and issuing gendered threats—reflects a deeper societal malaise. Women in positions of authority often face disproportionate abuse, both verbal and physical. The judge’s intent to take the matter before the National Commission for Women (NCW) is a much-needed assertion of gendered accountability.
The NCW and judiciary must work in tandem to treat such incidents not merely as contempt or obstruction but as gendered violence that merits urgent institutional action.
Public Confidence in the Judiciary
The faith of the public in the judiciary rests not only on the competence and impartiality of judges but also on the assurance that judges are free from coercion. If litigants believe they can threaten or intimidate judges to reverse adverse orders, it paves a dangerous path to lawlessness.
Therefore, strong punitive action is not just a matter of retribution—it is necessary to uphold public confidence in the rule of law.
Recommendations
- Immediate FIR for criminal intimidation
- Expeditious criminal contempt proceedings against both the accused and the advocate.
- Referral to the Bar Council for disciplinary action against the advocate.
- Institutional reforms to enhance security in lower courts and psychological safety for judges.
Conclusion
The incident in M/S Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj Singh is a wake-up call for the Indian legal system. It lays bare the vulnerabilities that judicial officers face, especially in the lower courts. It also spotlights the urgent need for structural reforms to protect judicial independence, courtroom security, and gender dignity.
While the judge in this case showed admirable courage in documenting and responding to the abuse, systemic safeguards must ensure that such courage does not come at the cost of personal safety or mental health. The judiciary, bar councils, legislature, and civil society must come together to affirm that no litigant, however aggrieved, has the right to bully justice into submission.
As the judiciary confronts evolving challenges to its autonomy, incidents like this underscore the need for zero tolerance toward intimidation and firm institutional resolve to uphold dignity, fairness, and fearlessness in the delivery of justice.