Assault on Female Judge: Court Decries Gender-Based Abuse

New Delhi, May 27 (PTI) - The Delhi High Court has made a significant observation regarding assaults on justice, stating that any act which threatens or intimidates a judge through gender-specific abuse is an assault on justice itself. This was highlighted in a recent ruling where the court refused to reduce the sentence of a lawyer who outraged the modesty of a female judicial officer using abusive language. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the incident transcended individual misconduct, representing an affront to the entire justice system. A judge, embodying the impartiality of law, became a target of personal attack while performing her duties.

The court's judgment, dated May 26, was firm in its stance against leniency, as it upheld a substantial sentence against the advocate involved. However, it did modify the trial court's decision so that the sentences would run concurrently rather than consecutively. Originally, the consecutive sentences would have totaled two years. The revised order now caps the lawyer's sentence to 18 months, following the 2015 courtroom incident involving abusive language towards a woman judge in a challan matter.

Justice Sharma expressed grave concern over gender-based abuse in judicial settings, emphasizing that a female judge must never feel vulnerable or unsupported. The incident's details surfaced after the female presiding officer formally complained to the police, highlighting that she had been subjected to insults that compromised her modesty and the court's dignity.

The court deemed the advocate's behavior "deeply disturbing," as it reflected "shocking" conduct that was entirely unacceptable. The injustice affected a sitting woman judicial officer, someone who should command respect and uphold the law's majesty within her courtroom—a setting that should exemplify order and lawfulness.

The high court stressed that no judicial officer, regardless of gender, should feel that their authority is dependent on others' civility or restraint. The integrity of the judiciary relies not on courtesy but on legal respect and the office's sanctity. This case underscores the systemic challenges women face, even in positions of power, highlighting the need for serious consequences to deter such behavior.

Such incidents, the court insisted, must not be dismissed as minor or isolated. They carry profound implications for how the judiciary is perceived, particularly by women. Respect and dignity are paramount, and when a judicial officer is wronged, the law must vociferously respond on their behalf—as in cases where justice's very voice is threatened.

The high court's decision is a call to action: it demands that the judicial dignity be mended and restored whenever it is threatened, emphasizing the need for law to speak decisively in upholding justice.