ARTICLE AD BOX
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan recorded that it is “not inclined to interfere with the orders” passed by the Delhi High Court against advocate Sanjay Rathore and dismissed his plea. (Source: File)
The Supreme Court Tuesday decided not to interfere with a Delhi High Court order which refused to reduce the sentence awarded to an advocate for outraging the modesty of a woman judicial officer in 2015, and granted him two weeks to surrender.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan recorded that it is “not inclined to interfere with the orders” passed by the Delhi High Court against advocate Sanjay Rathore and dismissed his plea.
In October 2015, the complainant judicial officer was serving as a metropolitan magistrate in the Karkardooma court when Rathore, enraged by an adjournment in his matter in his absence, verbally abused the officer, including using gendered abusive language. An FIR was subsequently lodged at the Farsh Bazar police station.
Rathore was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment under Indian Penal Code Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman), three months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). It was directed that the sentences should run consecutively, thereby resulting in a total sentence of two years.
The Delhi High Court, while refusing to reduce the sentence, however, modified it so that the sentences could run concurrently instead of consecutively. As a result, Rathore was sentenced to a total of one year and six months in prison.
The high court, in its order of May 26, emphasised that acts threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through “gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself, and must be met with firm accountability”.
While refusing Rathore any relief, it further recorded in its order, “The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, in this court’s opinion, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity.”