The advocate's loud voice had no effect on the Indian court
The Delhi High Court found the behavior of an advocate who raised his voice and tried to pressure the trial judge after the latter refused to adjourn the case to be «highly unacceptable». The court emphasized that «a judge is a judge» at any level of the judicial system, and disrespect for the court is unacceptable.
The relevant decision of 28 November 2025 in the case of Sandeep Kumar v. Kaptain Singh Rathi Through LRs was published by the Indian legal portal LawChakra.
The High Court emphasized that every judge, whether in the court of first instance or in a higher court, deserves equal respect and sharply criticized advocates who try to pressure judges when their position is not supported by sufficient legal arguments.
In considering the case, the High Court referred to the trial court's ruling of November 18, which described the advocate's behavior after he was denied another postponement of the case, which has been pending since 2016.
According to the court of first instance, the advocate raised his voice and stated that he practised in the Supreme Court, where «in the interests of justice» many opportunities for speeches were provided. Even when the court of first instance subsequently agreed to hear closing arguments on the same day, the advocate allegedly told the judge that he would not be speaking. The court of first instance also noted that a false statement was made regarding whether the lawyer's client had reached a settlement agreement.
The High Court strongly disapproved of this behavior, emphasizing that the advocate continued to speak in a raised voice even after being asked to calm down.
The decision states: «It is wholly unacceptable that, despite being asked to calm down, the honourable representative of the party continued to address the court in a raised voice, stating that he practises in the Supreme Court. Moreover, when he was offered a break so that the closing arguments could be heard on the same day, the esteemed representative defiantly stated that he would not argue the case and that the court was free to hear the arguments».
Due to this behavior and the lack of convincing legal grounds in the case, the High Court concluded that the appeal against the decision of the court of first instance to close the evidence stage did not merit consideration: «There are no grounds even for opening proceedings on this appeal. On the contrary, the appeal is completely unfounded and has ulterior motives».
In his defense, the advocate informed the High Court that he usually speaks loudly and denied that he had refused to present his arguments before the court of first instance. However, the court did not understand why he had not presented his arguments when he had been directly invited to do so.
In the end, the advocate asked for permission to withdraw the complaint and expressed regret for his behavior. The High Court agreed and dismissed the complaint and all related motions without consideration.
It should be recalled that the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that an advocate has the right to sharply criticize the actions of the court within the proceedings if this is necessary to defend the client and not to personally insult the judge. Punishment for such words is possible only in exceptional cases and should not force advocates to remain silent.
© 2025 Unba.org.ua Всі права захищені
"Національна Асоціація Адвокатів України". Передрук та інше використання матеріалів, що розміщені на даному веб-сайті дозволяється за умови посилання на джерело. Інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації можуть використовувати матеріали сайту, розміщувати відео з офіційного веб-сайту Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України на власних веб-сторінках, за умови гіперпосилання на офіційний веб-сайт Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України. Заборонено передрук та використання матеріалів, у яких міститься посилання на інші інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації. Матеріали позначені міткою "Реклама", публікуються на правах реклами.