Guarding the Sanctity of the Supreme Court

The recent incident in which an advocate hurled an object toward the Chief Justice of India inside the Supreme Court is not a mere act of indiscipline — it is an assault on the dignity of an institution that anchors India’s constitutional democracy. When the sanctum of justice is disturbed, it strikes at the heart of public faith in the rule of law.

The Constitutional Mandate

Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to punish for contempt and to ensure complete justice. These powers are not personal privileges of judges; they exist to preserve the authority and integrity of the judicial process. The Court’s dignity is intertwined with citizens’ trust, and any act that erodes that trust weakens democracy itself.

As the Supreme Court observed in In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002), “the foundation of the judiciary rests on the confidence of the people, and anything which shakes that confidence must be prevented.”

Law of Contempt and the Limits of Protest

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, under Section 2(c), defines “criminal contempt” as conduct that scandalizes the court or obstructs justice. Throwing an object or disrupting proceedings clearly falls within this definition. Section 12 authorizes punishment by simple imprisonment or fine, yet Section 13 restrains its use unless the act substantially interferes with justice — reflecting the Court’s commitment to balance and restraint. The Supreme Court’s measured handling of this episode — restoring order without undue reaction — shows that discipline can coexist with dignity.

Duty and Discipline of the Bar

Under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, every lawyer is duty-bound to uphold respect for the court. Rule 1 of Chapter II, Part VI mandates advocates to maintain a respectful attitude and refrain from conduct that interferes with justice. Breach of this duty amounts to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Act.

In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009), the Court reminded the Bar that advocates are officers of the court — their right to appear flows from the obligation to maintain decorum. The robe we wear symbolizes not privilege but restraint.

Freedom of Speech and Its Boundaries

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of expression, but Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions to protect the administration of justice. In E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970), the Supreme Court held that criticism of judges is permissible if fair and reasoned — not if it crosses into scandal or aggression. The courtroom is a space for argument, not anger.

Way Forward

This incident should prompt introspection, not outrage. Reform must follow reflection: Strengthen Security:

Introduce discreet yet effective screening to ensure safety without limiting access to justice.

Ethics Training: Bar Councils and law schools must prioritize professional conduct and emotional regulation as core skills.

Swift Discipline: Misconduct should invite prompt and proportionate action under the Advocates Act. Bench–Bar Dialogue: Regular interaction can build trust and mutual understanding between the judiciary and the profession.

Faith Over Force

The judiciary draws its authority not from coercion but from confidence. Every act of disrespect diminishes that moral strength. Advocates, as custodians of justice, must remember that liberty without discipline is chaos, and dissent without decorum is destruction.

The Supreme Court stands not for individual judges but for the idea of justice — impartial, fearless, and bound by the Constitution. Preserving that idea is a collective duty. The incident before the Chief Justice is a reminder that the dignity of courts is not merely a matter of law; it is the essence of our democratic conscience.

The author is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India.