Law students who disrupted Supreme Court proceedings sent to judicial custody for 14 days

Two law students, Prabal Pratap Singh and Chander Bhan, have been remanded to 14-day judicial custody by the Patiala House Court in Delhi for disrupting Supreme Court proceedings and allegedly abusing judges. The incident, which occurred before a Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe, involved one student, a petitioner-in-person, using abusive language and flinging case files. While the Supreme Court initially chose not to act, a police case was subsequently registered based on a complaint from its security staff. The students were declared mentally sound after examination, and pamphlets with objectionable language were recovered from them, highlighting the serious legal ramifications of such conduct within the judicial system.

The recent remand of two law students to judicial custody for disrupting proceedings and abusing judges in the Supreme Court of India underscores the critical importance of maintaining judicial decorum and the sanctity of court processes. The incident, involving a petitioner-in-person, Prabal Pratap Singh, and another student, Chander Bhan, saw the use of abusive language and the physical disruption of a Supreme Court Bench. While the Court itself initially refrained from taking immediate action, the subsequent police intervention and judicial custody highlight that such conduct carries severe legal consequences beyond the immediate purview of contempt of court proceedings initiated by the judiciary itself.

The Indian legal framework provides robust mechanisms to protect the dignity and authority of its courts, primarily through the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Act categorises contempt into 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt'. Civil contempt involves willful disobedience of court orders, while criminal contempt, as defined in Section 2(c), encompasses actions that "scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower the authority of, any court," or "prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding," or "interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." The Supreme Court, as a 'court of record' under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. This constitutional power is supplemented by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines the scope and procedures for dealing with contempt. The Act allows for punishment of simple imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. Furthermore, the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, provide the procedural framework for such cases. The right to appear as a petitioner-in-person, while recognised, is not absolute and is subject to rules of court decorum and conduct. High Courts, for instance, have established rules requiring parties-in-person to undertake to maintain court decorum and avoid objectionable language.

The incident involving the law students presents a multifaceted legal challenge, potentially invoking both the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The actions of flinging case files and using abusive language clearly fall within the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, as they tend to scandalise or lower the authority of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. While the Supreme Court bench initially chose not to initiate *suo motu* contempt proceedings, the registration of a police case indicates that the actions were also viewed as a breach of public order and potentially other criminal offences. This distinction is crucial: contempt proceedings are primarily aimed at upholding the dignity of the court, whereas a police case addresses the criminal aspect of the conduct. The fact that the students were medically examined and declared mentally sound negates any potential defence based on mental incapacity, thereby strengthening the case against them. The recovery of pamphlets containing objectionable language further suggests a premeditated intent to disrupt and challenge judicial authority, which could aggravate the charges. The Supreme Court's inherent power under Article 129 of the Constitution allows it to punish for contempt, and such proceedings can be initiated *suo motu* or on a motion by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, or by any person with their consent. Even though the Court did not act *that day*, the police complaint and subsequent judicial custody demonstrate that the broader legal system will not tolerate such disruptions. This case serves as a stark reminder that the privilege of appearing as a petitioner-in-person comes with a stringent obligation to respect judicial institutions and adhere to court decorum. Failure to do so can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment, as outlined in Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

This incident serves as a critical reminder to legal professionals, aspiring lawyers, and litigants alike about the inviolable sanctity of judicial proceedings. The swift action taken by law enforcement and the subsequent judicial custody underscore that disruptive behaviour in court, regardless of the underlying grievance, will not be tolerated and carries serious legal ramifications. For practitioners, this case highlights the importance of advising clients, particularly those appearing in person, on the strictures of court decorum and the potential for criminal charges in addition to contempt proceedings. The judiciary's authority and the administration of justice depend on an environment of respect and order. This development signals a firm stance against any attempts to undermine the dignity of the courts, reinforcing the principle that while justice must be accessible, its pursuit must always be within the bounds of law and decorum. Legal professionals should closely monitor the progression of this case, as its outcome will further delineate the boundaries of acceptable conduct within the Indian judicial system.