The division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh, has issued a show cause notice to a lawyer, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for disrupting judicial proceedings, verbally attacking a sitting judge, and causing unruly scenes in her courtroom. The court served the notice on lawyer Shakti Chand Rana and ordered him to appear in court on the next date of hearing, January 30, 2023.

Suo motu proceedings were initiated against Rana on December 14 for allegedly obstructing proceedings in the courtroom of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh, as a result of which the cases were not heard from 11.30 AM to 12:15 PM. In her order, Justice Singh stated that Rana's actions amounted to contempt of court and were a calculated attempt to undermine public trust in the administration of justice. According to the order, Rana stated that he was to remain present in a criminal case before the Saket court and, as a result, called the IO to inform him that he was in the courtroom and that he could come to the court to arrest him.

"The said individual did not have any matter listed on today's Board for hearing. Given the said fact, this Court directed the said individual to remove himself from the lawyers' Bar and permit the Court to continue with the hearing in the listed matters and allow the other learned lawyers to argue their cases, as per their listed matters. However, the said individual outrightly refused to remove himself and continued to shout, shriek and create an unruly scene, disrupting the Court proceedings," the order says.

Rana's behaviour, according to Justice Singh, was unbecoming for a lawyer and amounted to criminal contempt in the face of the court, which is punishable under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

"Regrettably and alarmingly despite the ruckus being created by the said errant individual who was virtually holding the Court to ransom, the security guards stationed right outside the door of the Courtroom, were also hesitant to remove the said errant person because he was dressed in the robes of a lawyer and thus, unable to restore order in the Courtroom, which further undermined the authority of the Court in the perception of public at large," the order states.