In a significant ruling upholding the dignity of the judiciary, the Allahabad High Court has sentenced Advocate Asok Pandey to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for repeatedly engaging in conduct that undermined the authority and sanctity of the court. The judgment, delivered on April 10, 2025, by a Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, highlights a pattern of disruptive and contemptuous behavior by Pandey, dating as far back as 2003.
This case not only sheds light on the limits of free expression within courtrooms, but also raises critical questions on the professional standards expected from lawyers and the court’s power to ensure decorum and respect for the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings arose from a 2021 courtroom incident, where Advocate Pandey appeared before a Bench of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Dinesh Kumar Singh in improper attire—civilian clothes with an unbuttoned shirt. When advised to dress appropriately, Pandey brazenly refused to comply, challenging the judges on the meaning of “decent dress.”
Not stopping there, Pandey proceeded to use abusive language, accused the judges of “behaving like goondas,” and disrupted the court proceedings. The incident, witnessed by multiple lawyers and litigants, led to immediate contempt proceedings being initiated by the Court in 2021.
Pattern of Misconduct and Judicial Observations
The April 2025 order went beyond the 2021 incident and outlined a pattern of judicial misconduct. The Court noted multiple instances between 2003 and 2017 where Pandey had displayed similar behavior.
“Such repeated misconduct shows that the contemnor is not merely misguided but is intentionally engaged in a pattern of behaviour aimed at undermining the authority of this Court,” the Bench observed.
The judgment underlined that despite being provided multiple opportunities to respond to the charges and present an explanation, Pandey remained silent, neither submitting an affidavit nor offering any defense. His silence, the judges said, was “recalcitrant and unrepentant,” indicating a deliberate defiance of the Court’s authority.
Previous Contempt Cases and Suspension
Interestingly, this was not the first time Advocate Pandey was held in contempt. The Court cited earlier disciplinary actions, including being barred from entering the Allahabad High Court premises for two years in an unrelated contempt matter. Despite past penalties, Pandey’s conduct did not change, reflecting a blatant disregard for judicial authority.
“The contemnor treats the judicial process with utter disdain and continues to undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution with impunity,” the Court remarked sternly.
Sentence and Next Steps
After carefully weighing the evidence and Pandey’s continued non-cooperation, the Court sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000. If the fine is not paid within a month, the Court ordered an additional one-month imprisonment.
Pandey has been directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow within four weeks to serve his sentence.
Moreover, the Court issued a show cause notice to Pandey, asking why he should not be barred from practicing in the High Court for three years. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on May 1, 2025, to examine Pandey’s response on this specific issue.
Legal Significance: Upholding the Contempt Powers of the Court
This case reaffirms the powers vested in the judiciary under Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution, which empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to punish for contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, also lays down provisions for penalizing conduct that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court or interferes with the administration of justice.
While the contempt power is exercised sparingly and with restraint, courts have time and again emphasized that it is essential to preserve the sanctity of the institution. In Advocate Pandey’s case, the Court was left with no option but to invoke this authority, given his repeated defiance and unapologetic stance.
Ethical Obligations of Lawyers
Lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to uphold the dignity, decorum, and integrity of judicial proceedings. Misbehavior, whether through verbal abuse, improper attire, or disruptive conduct, erodes public trust in the justice system.
By failing to adhere to these professional standards and repeatedly insulting the court, Advocate Pandey has drawn serious consequences, including potential disbarment or suspension under the rules framed by the Bar Council of India.
Implications for Legal Fraternity
This judgment serves as a stern warning to members of the legal fraternity who take court decorum lightly. The legal community must treat this as a cautionary tale, recognizing that freedom of speech does not extend to insulting the judiciary or engaging in disruptive courtroom behavior.
The ruling also reiterates that respect for institutional processes is not optional. While the Bar plays a crucial role in a democracy, that role cannot be exercised in defiance of judicial discipline.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s decision to sentence Advocate Asok Pandey to six months in jail marks a strong reaffirmation of the rule of law and the sanctity of court proceedings. In times when the credibility of institutions is frequently tested, such firm judicial actions serve to reinforce public confidence in the legal system.
As the May 1 hearing approaches, the Court’s next step—whether to bar Pandey from practicing—will further underscore the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession.
