Assaulting Advocate Commissioners is Assaulting the Court Itself: Delhi High Court Declares Mob Violence Against Commissioners as Criminal Contempt

“The respondents only joined together to ensure that the Advocate Commissioners do not carry their task entrusted to them by the Court. It was a concerted and group effort to scare them away… an attempt to thwart the wheels of justice……. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law… the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.” — Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court (Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar) pronounced its judgment in Court on Its Own Motion, arising out of the violent mob assault on eleven Advocate Commissioners appointed to raid Kolkata’s Khidderpore markets for counterfeit Samsung goods. The Court held that the deliberate obstruction and physical attack amounted to criminal contempt of court, reminding that “assaulting officers of the court amounts to assaulting the Court itself.”

The controversy began when Samsung Electronics approached the Delhi High Court in 2014, alleging rampant sale of counterfeit products in Kolkata. On 23 December 2014, the Court restrained traders from dealing in fake Samsung goods and appointed eleven Advocate Commissioners to seize infringing stock and prepare inventories.

When the Commissioners, assisted by the Kolkata Police, entered the Fancy Market and surrounding complexes on 13 January 2015, they faced organised violence. Advocate Shravan Sahary was dragged, beaten with rods, and lost two teeth; Advocate Ankur Mittal was brutally assaulted; Advocate Siddharth Khatana was attacked and chased; Advocate Amit Chhabra was dragged by his collar and hair; Advocate Nishu Singla was threatened by mobs carrying hockey sticks; and other Commissioners were forced to flee. Even police officials were beaten and required hospitalisation.

The Court immediately took suo motu cognizance on 22 January 2015, issuing show-cause notices to the traders and summoning police officers. Over time, thirty respondents, including shopkeepers, porters, and alleged instigators, were arraigned as contemnors.

The Bench underlined that contempt jurisdiction is exceptional and must be used carefully, but this case was one of brazen interference with justice. Quoting the Supreme Court, the judges reminded:

“The contempt jurisdiction is to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience or contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen… the entire democratic fabric of society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined.” (Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj)

The Court was categorical that the assault was not a spontaneous scuffle, but an organised resistance:

“The deliberate attempt was to thwart the execution of this Court’s orders by creating fear in the minds of Commissioners… this was an affront to the dignity of the Court and a direct attack on the rule of law.”

While many respondents offered unconditional apologies or claimed they mistook Commissioners as “impersonators,” the Bench held that apologies cannot erase wilful acts of obstruction when officers of the Court are attacked in the course of duty.

Holding that the mob violence was criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Delhi High Court declared that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of justice. The Court stressed:

“Assaulting officers of the Court amounts to assaulting the Court itself. The majesty of law cannot be reduced to helplessness in the face of mob fury.”

The Bench thus upheld the power of courts to treat interference with Commissioners as interference with the Court itself, reinforcing that the authority of the judiciary cannot be undermined by organised defiance.

This judgment delivers a stern warning: mob violence against officers executing judicial orders will be treated as criminal contempt, punishable with the full severity of law. By branding the attack as an assault on the Court’s dignity, the Delhi High Court underscored that the enforcement of judicial orders is the lifeblood of the rule of law.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2025