Delhi High Court Seeks Trial Court Record, CCTV Footage In Criminal Contempt Plea Filed Against Former HCBA President Rajiv Khosla In 1994 Assault Case

Dealing with a criminal contempt plea filed by former judge Sujata Kohli against former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla, the High Court today asked Kohli to place on record relevant material including the CCTV footages of the hearings before a City Court which had convicted Khosla for assaulting her in the year 1994.

Petitioner Sujata Kohli, who was a practicing lawyer earlier, became a judge in the Delhi judiciary and retired as District and Sessions Judge.

A bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani heard Kohli, who has alleged that Khosla has, by a series of acts & words, directly interfered with administration of justice, interfered with the due process of law and scandalized the court on its face.

Delhi Court Lets Off Former Delhi HC Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla With Rs. 40K Fine For Assaulting Woman Lawyer In 1994

In her plea, Kohli has submitted that certain unfortunate series of events transpired during the hearings before the Trial Court specifically on 27th and 30th November, 2021.

It has been alleged that on 27th November, 2021, while Kohli was joined through virtual mode, she saw that the courtroom was jam-packed with slogan shouting lawyers, telling the concerned judge that he had passed the conviction judgment under Kohli's pressure who had previously been a District Judge.

Referring to the said dates, the plea avers thus:

"That, ultimately what came out on 30th Nov. 2021, just 3 days later, was a sentence, quite anticipated, in view of the circumstances/alarming situation created in the courtroom, by the convict and his supporters, on 27th November, 2021. On 30.11.2021, the pen that wrote the Sentence was clearly a pen, in the shaking/trembling hands of the CMM, and the very CMM who earlier on 29th October 2021 had fearlessly gone ahead , to convict the very same accused, with his independent and fearless mind."

During the course of hearing today, Kohli, who was appearing in person, submitted that just because the Trial Court judge dared to pass a conviction judgment in a case which was not touched for the past 27 years, Khosla, being a Bar leader could not have used his authority to derail the process of law.

"What follows after is sad, it's unfortunate. It is not one word or act but a long series of acts by the convict being an officer of the Court. It sets a very bad example which should be set right so that young lawyers do not follow his footsteps in future," Kohli submitted.

Kohli submitted that Khosla had published various appeals and pamphlets on social media and otherwise asking bar associations to go on a strike and boycott court proceedings.

"Are we going to allow a convict, be it anybody, to state into the eyes of Court and to shout the Court, to bully it to the extent to what I have witnessed on November 27," Kohli argued while adding that she had access to the CCTV footages for the relevant dates.

Hearing Kohli, Justice Mridul orally remarked thus:

"We are concerned as anybody else with respect to how Court proceedings have to be conducted and how decorum has to be maintained. But if you were to place the CCTV Footage on record, it will go a long way. Place it on record. We will consider it very seriously."

The Court therefore said that it will look at the material which was being relied by Kohli to make a prima facie observation before starting proceedings against Khosla.

Accordingly, in order to enable Kohli to place on record relevant materials including record of the video conferencing hybrid proceedings of the subject matter and also the CCTV footage of the two dates, the Court adjourned the hearing to next week.

The matter will now be heard on February 16.

The petition has been filed by Kohli under sec. 15 of the Contempts of Court Act, with the consent of Standing Counsel of the State for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Khosla.

About Sentencing Order

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Gajender Singh Nagar had passed the sentencing order.

While passing the sentencing order, although the Court took note of the fact that Khosla despite being a member of bar and an oficer of the Court assaulted a lady bar member in the presence of a number of lawyers which was definitely an aggravating factor, it also considered the fact that he was a 65 years old man, who was never convicted in any other case till date as per record of police.

About The Controversy

The allegations against Khosla were that in July 1994, when he was the Secretary of Delhi Bar Association, he had asked Kohli to join a seminar and on her refusal, threatened her that all facilities from the Bar Association would be withdrawn and she would be dispossessed of her seat as well.

A civil suit was filed by her seeking appropriate injunction however, her table and chair were removed from its spot. It was thereafter alleged by her in the complaint that when she was sitting on a bench placed nearby her seat while waiting for visit of the Civil judge, Rajiv Khosla alongwith co-accused had came with a mob of 40-50 lawyers.

According to the complainant, they all surrounded her, and Khosla stepped forward and pulled her from her hair, twisted her arms, dragged her by hair, uttered filthy abuses and threatened her.

While the FIR was lodged by police in August 1994, the complainant had filed a complaint case on being utterly dissatisfied with the investigation in March 1995.

The Court was of the opinion that the testimony of the Kohli qua her allegation of being pulled by hair and arm by Khosla and the threat that she will not be allowed to practice from Tis Hazari Court was "absolutely truthful and creditworthy."

"Delhi Bar Association is undisputedly a very strong and formidable body of lawyers and more often, police is very slow in taking any action when it comes to lawyers. In the case in hand the accused was a prominent leader of Bar, at the relevant time he was Honorary Secretary of the DBA," the Court had said on the aspect of Police witnesses not supporting the case of the complainant.

The Court was of the view that the act of pulling someone from hair and arm would result in bodily pain and thus offence under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) IPC was made out as bodily pain was inflicted on the complainant.

Case Title: Sujata Kohli v. Rajiv Khosla