Delhi High Court orders man to appear in person after he repeatedly appears via VC and threatens bench

The Delhi High Court recently took strong exception to the repeated threats against judges by a man already facing criminal contempt of court proceedings [Court on its own motion v Adeeshwar Singhal]. 

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja directed the contemnor, Adeeshwar Singhal, to appear before the Court in person on March 23, failing which the Court will take “appropriate coercive steps to have his presence ensured.”

“The respondent [Singhal], in spite of our directions to be physically present before this Court, has not appeared in person. While he has joined the proceedings virtually, he has threatened the Court. We take strong exception to the same and have, in fact, warned the respondent that this would amount to compounding of the contempt. We, again, call upon the respondent to appear in person before this Court on the next date of hearing, failing which we shall be constrained to take appropriate coercive steps to have his presence ensured,” the Bench said in its order dated February 19. 

The Court also appointed advocate Amit George as amicus curiae in the matter. 

Contempt of court proceedings were initiated against Singhal last year on a reference made by a district judge posted at Karkardooma Courts. 

According to the court records, Singhal appeared before the court on April 9, 2025, through video conferencing and made scandalous and derogatory remarks against the judge in open court, repeatedly interrupted the proceedings, and defied the directions issued by the Court. Despite warnings and efforts to maintain order, he continued with his disruptive and disrespectful behaviour.

The High Court issued notice to Singhal on May 23, 2025, in the contempt of court proceedings and directed him to appear on August 1, 2025. However, he failed to appear in person.

Bailable warrants were issued against him on November 6, 2025. The order reveals that on that date, he again appeared through video conferencing but refused to disclose his location to the Court. He also told the Court that he would not face these “stupid proceedings.”

When the matter was taken up on December 2, 2025, the Court was informed that the warrants could not be executed. Singhal again appeared via video conference and used “derogatory and contemptuous words” against the High Court judges, prompting the Court to remove him from the proceedings.

The Court then proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against him.

On January 8, 2026, the police informed the Court that Singhal had left the country. When the matter was taken up again on February 19, Singhal once more appeared through video conference and used threatening language towards the Court.

Following this, the Bench directed him to appear before the Court in person, failing which it would take appropriate measures to secure his presence.

[Read Order]