In a stern rebuke, the Supreme Court of India directed a man accused of threatening a court-appointed woman lawyer with a pistol during a local commission visit to surrender before jail authorities. The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, came down heavily on the accused, observing that his conduct amounted to intimidation of a judicial officer in the line of duty. Terming the act as a grave obstruction of justice, the Court remarked that such behaviour “deserves jail” and refused to entertain his plea until he surrendered, underscoring that a local commissioner represents the very authority of the Court.
Case Background
- The case arises from contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) in relation to a matter concerning the disposal of approx. 30,000 tons of industrial coal.
- In that matter, Nitin Bansal’s father had been restrained by the DHC from dealing with the said coal. Subsequent to that order, a local commissioner (a woman lawyer) was appointed to inspect the premises in Faridabad in July last year.
- On that inspection, it is alleged that Bansal exhibited non-cooperative behaviour, threatened/intimidated the commissioner and placed a pistol on the table during the execution of the commission. The pistol was suspected to be unlicensed and later confiscated by the police.
- Bansal’s defence before the Court included the claim that the object was not a real pistol, but a “toy gun / air gun”, and that police officials were present (five of them) so “there could be no intimidation” as alleged.
SC’s Observations & Orders
- A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and were highly critical of Bansal’s conduct.
- The Court said that the local commissioner is “an extension of the Court itself”, and that placing a pistol (or gun-like object) during the execution of a court appointed commission is a serious act of obstruction.
- Justice Kant voiced that Bansal did not show any remorse in his petition, was “still trying to accuse the Local Commissioner”, and the High Court should have taken harsher action.
- On the “air gun / toy gun” defence, the Court observed that the plea was false/misleading, since the object was found to be a real gun rather than a toy gun.
- Despite the presence of police officials, the Court observed that if the police were not there, “something untoward (like physical assault)” might well have occurred.
- The SC refused to grant interim relief (i.e., to entertain the SLP) unless Bansal first surrendered. The order states:
“Let the petitioner first surrender before jail authorities on November 6.”
- The Court further remarked succinctly: “This man … should be in jail”.
Key Legal/ Practical Takeaways
- The case highlights the seriousness with which the Court treats intimidation of court-appointed officers or functionaries (here: a local commissioner).
- The presence of a gun or gun-like object during court proceedings or inspections is considered a severe obstruction and considered worthy of escalation (both in terms of contempt and criminal proceedings).
- A claim that a “toy gun/air gun” was involved will be closely scrutinised; if evidence shows otherwise, the defence will be discredited.
- Surrender to custody may be mandated before relief is considered in such high-seriousness matters.
-
Demonstrated lack of remorse and attempts to shift blame onto the court officer can worsen the petitioner’s position.