Supreme Court refuses to reduce sentence of advocate who abused woman magistrate in 2015

The Supreme Court Tuesday decided not to interfere with a Delhi High Court order which refused to reduce the sentence awarded to an advocate for outraging the modesty of a woman judicial officer in 2015, and granted him two weeks to surrender.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan recorded that it is 'not inclined to interfere with the orders' passed by the Delhi High Court against advocate Sanjay Rathore and dismissed his plea.
In October 2015, the complainant judicial officer was serving as a metropolitan magistrate in the Karkardooma court when Rathore, enraged by an adjournment in his matter in his absence, verbally abused the officer, including using gendered abusive language. An FIR was subsequently lodged at the Farsh Bazar police station.
Rathore was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment under Indian Penal Code Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman), three months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). It was directed that the sentences should run consecutively, thereby resulting in a total sentence of two years.
The Delhi High Court, while refusing to reduce the sentence, however, modified it so that the sentences could run concurrently instead of consecutively. As a result, Rathore was sentenced to a total of one year and six months in prison.
The high court, in its order of May 26, emphasised that acts threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through 'gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself, and must be met with firm accountability'.
While refusing Rathore any relief, it further recorded in its order, 'The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, in this court's opinion, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

39 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Sharing video footage of polling station breaches voters' privacy: EC officials

Amid demands to make public webcasting footage of polling stations, Election Commission officials on Saturday (June 21, 2025) said such a move is violative of privacy and security concerns of voters. They said that while such demand suits their narrative in making it sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process, it is, in fact, aimed at achieving exactly the "opposite objective". Also Read | 'Match is fixed': Rahul Gandhi alleges Election Commission 'deleting evidence' instead of giving answers Officials claimed that what is veiled as a very logical demand is actually "entirely contrary" to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court. Sharing the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well as the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements, they asserted. Creating an instance, they said if a particular political party gets the lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and, thereafter, may harass or intimidate them. To be sure, the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an election petition. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining the footage beyond this period makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, the officials underlined. They noted that in case an election petition is filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable for the EC and it has never compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court, the functionaries said. Fearing the use of its electronic data to create "malicious narratives", the Election Commission has instructed its state poll officers to destroy CCTV cameras, webcasting and video footage of the election process after 45 days, if the verdict is not challenged in courts within that period. The remarks come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5 pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. In a letter to state chief electoral officers on May 30, the EC said it has issued instructions for recording various stages of the election process through multiple recording devices -- photography, videography, CCTV and webcasting during the election process. While electoral laws do not mandate such recordings, the Commission uses them as an internal management tool during various stages of the electoral process. "However, the recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out-of-context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review," it said.

Time of India

39 minutes ago

• Time of India

US Chief Justice John Roberts on transgender healthcare: Upholds state bans while sidestepping Trump's agenda; liberals say trans kids left unprotected

US cheif justice John R US chief justice John Roberts has delivered a ruling on transgender healthcare that upholds restrictions but avoids hardline stances, aiming to strike a balance in one of the Supreme Court's most sensitive decisions. Ruling affirms bans, avoids deeper legal precedent In a 24-page opinion issued Wednesday, Roberts upheld Tennessee's law that restricts gender-affirming care like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 18. While affirming the state's authority, Roberts carefully avoided endorsing broader conservative arguments that could have made transgender individuals more vulnerable in other legal contexts. "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." The chief justice said the law classified treatment based on age and medical use, not sex. That explanation avoided the need for a strict constitutional review. Conservative justices push further Some conservatives on the bench pushed for a broader ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas accused medical professionals of compromising their judgment to advance political goals. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her own opinion joined by Thomas, argued transgender people should not be viewed as a protected class deserving heightened legal scrutiny. She also raised concerns about trans participation in sports. Justice Samuel Alito joined in criticising the court's 2020 Bostock decision, which extended workplace protections to gay and trans employees. However, Roberts declined to extend or roll back Bostock in this case. Liberal dissent laments abandonment of trans youth Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal dissenters, strongly objected to the court's refusal to apply stricter legal review. "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims," she wrote. She argued that transgender Americans face discrimination in healthcare, housing, and employment, and that the court's inaction left them "doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination." Trump policies loom over ruling Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders affecting trans Americans, including the expulsion of trans military personnel. Justice Sotomayor highlighted these actions in her dissent, warning that the current federal agenda was amplifying discrimination. Roberts' ruling did not talk directly about these bigger political issues but repeated his earlier calls for judges to stay cautious and limited in their role. During oral arguments in December, he said, "My understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor." Legal and political consequences While the decision supports states like Tennessee for now, civil rights groups say the limited reasoning means it could still be challenged in the future."It's a devastating loss for trans youth and their families," said Cecillia Wang of the ACLU. "But the opinion is cabined both on the record and on doctrine. We live to fight another day."

Hindustan Times

an hour ago

• Hindustan Times

Assam: Special court orders framing of charges under POCSO, IPC against IPS officer

Diphu , A special court in Assam has ordered the framing of charges under the POCSO Act and other sections of the IPC against IPS officer Gaurav Upadhyay in a six-year-old alleged sexual molestation case. Assam: Special court orders framing of charges under POCSO, IPC against IPS officer The special judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences court, Karbi Anglong, R Lal, in the order, said that there were "two incidents of sexual assault on the survivor" by the accused, who was the superintendent of police of that district at the time of the incident. "The first assault occurred in the SP Bungalow at Diphu. The second assault took place in the hotel room where the survivor was staying with her mother and brother," it said. A copy of the order, which was passed on Wednesday, was made available to PTI on Saturday. The incident, involving a 14-year-old girl, took place in December 2019 and a police case was registered in January 2020. The Criminal Investigation Department had probed the case and submitted its charge-sheet against the IPS officer subsequently. An IPS officer of 2012 batch hailing from Uttar Pradesh, Upadhyay is currently the additional secretary of the state Transport Department; State Project Director, Assam Inland Water Transport Development Society; and Project Officer, Assam Integrated River Basin Management. The judge noted that as Upadhyay was the Karbi Anglong SP at the time of the incident, it occurred within the limits of his jurisdiction and control as a police officer, attracting clauses and of Section 9 of the POCSO Act and punishable under Section 10 of the same law. Use of "criminal force to kiss" the victim and "physical contact and advances" by touching her private parts, as stated specifically by the minor in her statement, leads to charges under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code , the order said. It also said that the case has remained at the pre-trial stage for several years, whereas judicial precedents direct trial courts to expedite such cases with the legislature also mandating a time-bound completion of trial in POCSO Act cases. "In the circumstances, charges under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354, 354A of the IPC are hereby framed," the special judge ruled. Section 10 of the POCSO Act deals with the punishment for aggravated sexual assault, while Sections 354 and 354A of IPC are for offences related to assault or criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty or sexual harassment. The special judge has fixed August 21 as the date for recording the accused's plea concerning the charge and necessary order. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.