The Delhi High Court on Friday framed criminal contempt of court charges against a Delhi-based advocate for making scandalous allegations against a judge during the court proceedings and subsequently on LinkedIn. .A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja framed the charges under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.“We frame the charge that during the course of hearing of FIR wherein you are a party in person, you had raised your voice and used unparliamentary language in open court against the court and further levelled scandalous allegations by saying that the court is working in collusion with the accused persons," the Court said. It added that the advocate kept using unparliamentary language and refused to maintain decorum despite repeated warnings, thereby lowering the authority of the court. "By the above act, you have lowered the authority of the court and tried to interfere with the judicial proceedings and administration of justice. You have uploaded the said LinkedIn post, thereby scandalising the authority of the court and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice, thereby committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,” the Court said. The Court also recorded a prima facie finding that there was sufficient evidence to show that the LinkedIn account from which the scandalous comments were made was operated by the advocate and her brother."The post by itself has scandalous remarks against the judicial officer. We asked her to justify, however, she maintains that as the post is not uploaded by her, she does not own to the same and the question of justification does not arise," the Court recorded.It also noted that “curiously” the LinkedIn account was closed on January 29, 2026 the same date on which the Court had directed Cyber Cell of the Delhi Police and LinkedIn Corporation to produce details of the person behind the said LinkedIn post. .The contempt of court petition was registered on a reference dated March 26, 2025, made by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to the Registrar General of the High Court.The High Court noted that the reference was based on the proceedings before the court of the judicial officer, in which the advocate had raised her voice, used unparliamentary language against the judicial officer and made scandalous allegations that the court was working in collusion with the opposing party..Before passing the order on Friday, the Court asked the advocate for an explanation.“Prima facie we have enough evidence to now frame charge against you. Once charge is framed, then evidence will be made. The post is in your name, from an account that is being linked to you by the IP address, through mobile service provider. Please tell us why charge should not be framed against you.”Justice Dudeja added, “Even otherwise also, overwhelming circumstances are there.“The advocate maintained that the account does not belong to her. “I never denied that I have a LinkedIn account. I am saying that multiple accounts can be created by the same name,” she said.Justice Chawla responded:“That will come in evidence, we will ask them how multiple accounts can use same IP address.” The advocate tried justifying her conduct by stating that the judge was giving long dates, and she was only requesting to be heard when the outburst came from the judge. "I am suffering, my family is suffering. I was also fed-up. I was only requesting [to be heard], suddenly he outbursted (sic). I said only one thing, 'Aap judicial officer hoke aise baat karte hain, aapke judicial academy me yahi sikhate hain? (How can you talk like this as a judicial officer? Is this what is taught in the judicial academy?) I did not shout at him, I did not abuse him. I was only frustrated. Maybe I raised my voice that's why he reacted. I don't know about the LinkedIn post,” she said. .However, the Bench said that the very fact that the lawyer had a spat with the judicial officer is contempt in itself. "Be that as it may, you are not apologising, you are maintaining that you are entitled to fight with the judicial officer,” Justice Chawla stated. Ultimately, the Court asked the advocate to file a reply to the charge within four weeks and send a copy of the same to amicus curiae Harsh Prabhakar.The Court also asked her to appear in person on the next date of hearing on May 26..Advocate Harsh Prabhakar assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.The lawyer appeared in person.
