In a major verdict upholding the dignity and sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court of India on June 10, 2025, confirmed Sanjay Rathore’s conviction for outraging the modesty of a woman judicial magistrate in open court.”.
The court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s validation of the verdict by allowing the trial court’s order sentencing Rathore to 18 months’ simple imprisonment for committing an offense against Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case is a fallout of an incident in October 2015 in the Karkardooma Courts in Delhi.
When the lady magistrate, adjudicating a challan case, adjourned it, she is said to have provoked a violent tantrum from the advocate. According to the magistrate’s complaint, Rathore employed sexually offensive and obscene language from the dais in the court open to the public and insulted her dignity and outraged her modesty while performing her official judicial duties.
Rathore was held guilty by the trial court under Section 509 of the IPC, which renders utterance of words, gestures, or acts meant to outrage the modesty of a woman a criminal offense. He was convicted for 18 months’ simple imprisonment for this offense.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Additionally, the court found him guilty for three months under Section 189 of the IPC for threatening a public servant and under Section 353 for criminal force to deter a public servant from performing his duty. These sentences were directed to run consecutively.
But a Division Bench with Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan declined to grant any relief. The Court agreed with the lower courts’ findings and refused to lower the sentence, despite repeated applications by Rathore’s lawyers citing personal difficulties of caring for young children, old parents, and serving time already in custody.
Justice Mishra, on behalf of the bench, emphasized the need to maintain the dignity of the judicial officers, especially during a period where a large majority of judges are women. He noted that if such acts on the part of the advocates are permitted without any repercussions, it will become impossible for women to discharge their judicial duties effectively.
The bench further stated that the occurrence was not a spontaneous outburst or temporary lapse, but an intentional and atrocious assault on the dignity of the judicial officer in public. The Court categorically opined that it cannot endorse or sanction abusive conduct in the courtroom under the pretext of legitimate arguments or frustration.
Though the Supreme Court refused to agree with the conviction or the sentence, it granted Rathore two weeks’ time to turn over voluntarily. The decision has been widely welcomed as a clear indication from the top court of the importance of creating a decent and safe working atmosphere for all judicial personnel, particularly women.
Legal professionals and court representatives saw the verdict as a long overdue acquittaL of the commitment of the judiciary itself to maintaining its dignity and integrity. Various women’s rights activists also applauded the verdict saying that it would discourage gender based harassment in courtrooms in which women are generally disadvantaged.
The case Sanjay Rathore v. State (Government of NCT Delhi), has set a precedent for the broader discussion of legal ethics, court conduct and the need for imposing stricter disciplinary standards on members of the legal profession.
The ruling will also lead to increased debate within the Bar Council and the legal societies regarding compulsory behavioral training particularly of dealing with judicial officers and the preservation of the decorum of court proceedings.
Though the judiciary in India is still trying to find its place in matters of institution-building and representation of gender, this judgment was a landmark. It is a strong message that any attempt to scare or demean judicial officials will be met with robust institutional resistance and legal consequences.
References:
- SCC Online: Supreme Court upholds lawyer’s conviction for outraging modesty of woman judge
- Verdictum: Supreme Court refuses relief to lawyer convicted for abusing woman magistrate
- Hindustan Times: No compromise on women’s dignity, says SC
- Indian Kanoon: Sanjay Rathore v. State – case documents and procedural history
