Can a Lawyer Call Judges 'Goondas' and Walk Free? Not This Time, Says Allahabad HC

In a significant order underscoring the sanctity of judicial decorum, the Allahabad High Court has sentenced Advocate Ashok Pandey of Lucknow to six months of simple imprisonment for criminal contempt of court. The Court also barred him from practicing before the High Court in both Allahabad and Lucknow benches for a period of three years.

The division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh found Pandey guilty of criminal contempt, citing repeated and willful misconduct, including the use of abusive language directed at the judges, whom he referred to as "goondas" during open court proceedings in 2021. The bench noted that Pandey’s conduct exhibited “utter disdain” for the judicial process and constituted a persistent effort to erode the authority and dignity of the court.

Background of the Case

The contempt proceedings stem from an incident on August 18, 2021, when Advocate Pandey appeared in court improperly attired—dressed in civilian clothing with an unbuttoned shirt. Upon being advised by the bench to dress appropriately, Pandey defied the directive, challenged the Court’s understanding of "decent dress," and refused to wear the mandated advocate’s uniform.

The situation escalated as Pandey created a disturbance within the courtroom, employed offensive language, and openly accused the judges of behaving like "goondas." The Court considered these actions a serious attempt to scandalize the judiciary and diminish its stature in the presence of advocates and observers.

📺⚽🎵 Lights, camera, contracts!

Master the legal side of media, sports & entertainment with experts from SC & IIT Kharagpur.

10 days, 10 sessions — starting April 15th! 🎓

Into Legal World presents Certificate Course on Media, Entertainment & Sports Law in Collaboration with Amity Law School, Amity University, Jharkhand

REGISTER NOW: https://www.intolegalworld.com/mediaentertainmentsportslaw

The matter was further exacerbated by Pandey’s conduct just two days earlier, on August 16, 2021. During the hearing of an unrelated matter, he forcibly entered the courtroom without the court's permission, again not in proper attire, and interrupted the proceedings by shouting and demanding to address the bench out of turn. To restore order, the Court directed security personnel to remove him and ordered his temporary custody until 3:00 PM that day. He was given time to reflect on his behavior and extend an unconditional apology. However, upon release, rather than showing remorse, Pandey resumed his disruptive conduct.

Findings and Observations

Given the sustained nature of his contemptuous behavior, the Court concluded that no leniency could be afforded. The bench initiated suo motu contempt proceedings after observing that the advocate had repeatedly shown disregard for court orders and failed to express any remorse or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

The judgment noted that Pandey, a senior member of the Awadh Bar Association, was well aware of court decorum and attire requirements. His decision to defy these norms—paired with his verbal misconduct—was deemed a "deliberate and direct affront" to the institution of justice.

Furthermore, his uninvited and forceful intrusion into the courtroom, attempts to hijack judicial proceedings, and persistent outbursts were described as clear violations of courtroom protocol. The Court emphasized that such actions are not only disruptive but also detrimental to the public’s perception of judicial integrity.

The bench held that Pandey’s actions squarely fall within the scope of Section 2(c)(i) and Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—namely, acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court and interfere with judicial proceedings.

Additional Measures and Appeal

In addition to sentencing Pandey to six months of simple imprisonment, the Court has issued a notice under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, requiring him to explain why he should not be debarred from practicing before the High Court for the aforementioned three-year period.

Following the pronouncement of the verdict, Pandey orally requested a certificate of leave to appeal under Article 134(A) of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, denied this request.

The ruling stands as a strong reminder of the judiciary’s intolerance for behavior that undermines its authority, disrupts its proceedings, and threatens the decorum of courtrooms across the country.