Delhi HC contempt notice to lawyer who disrupted proceedings for 45 mins

Contempt proceedings were initiated against lawyer Shakti Chand Rana on December 14 after he allegedly misbehaved with justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora during proceedings in the court

New Delhi

Lawyer Shakti Chand Rana has been asked reply to a show cause notice on or before January 30, 2023. (File)

The Delhi high court on Monday issued a show cause notice to a lawyer, seeking to know why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for allegedly misbehaving with a sitting judge and disrupting court proceedings on December 14.

A bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh asked lawyer Shakti Chand Rana to reply to the notice on or before January 30, 2023, the next date of hearing, while also directing him to be present in the court on that day.

“Having perused the said order, we find it incumbent to issue notice to Shakti Chand Rana….to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him. The registry is directed to issue the show cause notice by all permissible modes including dasti through the SHO of the concerned police station,” the court said in a verbal order.

However, when contacted, Rana told HT that he has not received any notice or intimation from the high court.

Contempt proceedings were initiated against Rana by justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on December 14 after he allegedly misbehaved with her during proceedings in the court and had to be forcibly removed from the courtroom after repeated requests to him to leave.

Justice Arora noted that Rana did not have any matter listed in the court for hearing and when he was asked to leave the courtroom, he “outrightly refused and continued to shout, shriek and create an unruly scene”.

“From what the court could gather, given his loud utterances, he stated that there is an FIR lodged against him and he is required at that same moment to remain present for further proceedings in the said FIR before the concerned Court, Saket District Courts, Delhi,” the court said in its order.

Rana started making a phone call from his mobile phone, stating that he was calling the concerned Investigation Officer (IO) to come and arrest him from the high court.

As he was repeatedly being asked to leave the courtroom, Rana resorted a verbal attack on the judge and her staff members by “stating that the lodging of the FIR against him is on account of the court” as the judge had adjourned his rent revision matter listed on December 12.

Noting that even the security officials were hesitant to go near him due to his conduct, the court called the registrar general of the high court, who in turn called the president, the secretary and other members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to counsel him since he was in the robes of a lawyer.

“Upon the Registrar General’s request, the office bearers, DHCBA, also came, heard him out and tried to persuade (Rana) to move out of the courtroom and to explain his grievance to them outside….However, he refused to leave even at the request of the officer bearers of the DHCBA,” the court said in its order, adding that he was “forcibly removed” from the courtroom.

Two days after the incident, the DHCBA, in an official statement on December 16, said that it condemns “the disorderly conduct and misbehaviour committed by advocate Shakti Rana before the Hon’ble Judge of High Court of Delhi”.

Rana said that he has 11 property dispute cases registered against him, but has not received any show cause notice from the court.

“I am a 73-year-old senior citizen who is being harassed. I have been oppressed by the police and the judiciary. I am being summoned in the courts due to false cases. On December 12, I had sought an early hearing from the judge, who while rising, asked her court master to give me an early date. The court staff gave me the date of February, to which I objected. On December 14, when I raised this issue with the judge, she called the registrar, followed by the registrar vigilance, members of the bar association and the security officials,” Rana said.

“I was assaulted and chased down by the security officials in the high court premises and not only them but even the litigants present in the court were beating me. The secretary of the bar association, Sandeep Sharma, himself called his counterpart in the Saket Bar Association to get me an adjournment in the case listed at Saket court and the matter was listed for March 2023. Even after the incident, I was sitting in the high court library. If I had done anything wrong, why was I not arrested? I have not received any show cause notice of contempt or intimation from the high court,” he added.

In her order on December 14, justice Arora also noted that while being ushered out, Rana started yelling that “if he commits suicide the entire judiciary will be responsible for his death”.

“To resist being removed from the courtroom he tried to lie down on the floor and had to be dragged and removed physically,” the judge said, noting that due to the “unsavoury incident”, proceedings remained suspended between 11.30am to 12.15pm.

“…..Shakti Chand Rana’s outburst in the courtroom was unwarranted. Prima facie, it is evident that the accused Rana was on one hand avoiding his presence before the concerned court at Saket district, where he was directed to appear and he deliberately disrupted the judicial proceedings of the court to achieve that end thereby succeeding in obstructing the legal proceeding before the Court at Saket as well as this court,” the court said.

“Prima facie, the conduct of the said individual tantamounts to contempt, criminal in nature, in the face of the court…Further, since he was dressed in his robes and holding himself out as a lawyer, he sought to take unfair advantage of his enrolment and continued to scandalize the court, deliberately despite being repeatedly cautioned,” the court said.

Asserting that Rana’s conduct is unbecoming for a lawyer, the court had said that it amounts to criminal contempt punishable under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

It had requested the registrar general to place the record of the judicial proceeding before chief justice Satish Chandra Sharma to take cognizance of the criminal contempt and direct further appropriate proceedings against Rana, including a complaint to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).