-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
“This Court cannot be a playground for repeated acts of defiance, disruption, and abuse—discipline in the courtroom is not optional, it is foundational” - In a scathing and precedent-laden judgment delivered on 10 April 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) sentenced controversial lawyer Asok Pande to six months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for criminal contempt, following his repeated outbursts, indecorous appearance in court, and “scandalous attacks” on the judiciary.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, while holding him guilty, underlined a fundamental truth: “The primary object of the contempt jurisdiction is not to protect the dignity of individual judges, but to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.”
Asok Pande, a habitual litigant and advocate with a history of contempt proceedings, refused to apologise or cooperate in the proceedings. Instead, he continued his spree of “brazen disruption and open defiance.”
“He walked into court in an unbuttoned shirt, defied orders, and called the judges ‘goondas’—that is not dissent, that is disdain”
The contempt arose from incidents on 16 and 18 August 2021, when Asok Pande stormed into court in civil dress with his shirt unbuttoned, refused to wear the prescribed advocate's gown, and when asked to dress properly, he mocked the bench, asking: “What is decent dress?” He then allegedly said the judges were “behaving like goondas”, in open court.
The Bench recorded: “Instead of expressing remorse after being removed from court and held in custody until 3 PM, he returned to the courtroom and resumed his contemptuous conduct.”
On 16 August as well, during a PIL hearing, Pande had entered the courtroom without being called, shouted over the judges, and insisted on addressing the court without uniform.
“He has turned contempt into a career—every few years, the same circus repeats itself”
The Court made it clear that this was not an isolated act. It detailed a pattern of past misconduct: “This is not the first occasion where the contemnor has exhibited a pattern of disrespect towards the judiciary.”
The judgment recounted a catalogue of past contempt proceedings against Asok Pande: In 2017, he had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and barred from entering the High Court premises for two years.
In multiple other instances between 2003 to 2021, he had used abusive language, disrupted court proceedings, filed frivolous or scandalous PILs, and personally targeted judges.
The Court noted: “We find no sense of remorse, repentance, or even a pretence of apology. The contemnor treats courtrooms as personal platforms and the judicial process with utter disdain.”
“This isn’t freedom of speech. This is contempt dressed as arrogance.”
Citing landmark judgments like Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996), Arundhati Roy, In Re (2002), and D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996), the Bench reiterated: “Freedom of speech does not extend to scandalising the judiciary. The law of contempt exists not to shelter judges, but to preserve the majesty and authority of the court.”
The Court described Asok Pande’s behaviour as: “A direct and deliberate affront to the dignity and decorum of this Court. Such conduct, especially from a member of the legal profession, is inexcusable.”
“The courtroom is not a battleground for attention-seekers. It is a place for justice.”
Having recorded that the contemnor failed to respond to the show cause notice, filed no affidavit, and made no defence whatsoever, the Bench concluded: “In light of the gravity of the charges, his previous conduct, and his deliberate failure to participate in these proceedings, we are of the view that exemplary punishment is warranted.”
Accordingly, the Court passed the following sentence:
Six months’ simple imprisonment
Fine of ₹2,000, failing which he would undergo an additional month of imprisonment
Further, invoking Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the Court issued a notice to debar him from practicing before the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for a period of three years, directing him to file his reply by 1 May 2025 and remain present on that date.
In its concluding remarks, the Court reminded the legal fraternity and the public at large that: “Discipline is the lifeblood of judicial functioning. When lawyers attempt to turn courtrooms into forums for personal outrage and public spectacle, the entire system suffers.”
This judgment is not just about punishing one individual. It is a declaration: the dignity of the court is not negotiable. Repeated, unrepentant contempt will not go unanswered.
Date of Decision: 10 April 2025
