On April 2, during a hearing of a cheque bounce case at the Dwarka Court in Delhi, Judicial Magistrate Shivangi Mangla was threatened and verbally abused by the convicted accused and his lawyer after delivering a conviction.

The 63-year-old retired government teacher, found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hurled abuses and threatened the judge’s life, saying, “Tu hai kya cheez… bahar mil dekhte hai kaise zinda ghar jaati hai” (“Who do you think you are… meet me outside and let’s see how you make it home alive”). The accused also attempted to throw an object at the judge.

The lawyer joined in pressuring the judge to reverse the verdict and threatened to file complaints against her. The judge has issued a show-cause notice to the lawyer and plans to approach the National Commission for Women. The court sentenced the accused to 22 months’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹6.65 lakh, though the sentence was temporarily suspended pending appeal. Authorities are investigating the incident to ensure the safety and dignity of judicial officers.

Courtroom Outburst Highlights Threats to Judicial Authority

The tense atmosphere inside the courtroom escalated dramatically after Magistrate Shivangi Mangla pronounced the conviction in the cheque bounce case, which had been pending for six years. The accused, a retired government teacher, reacted with fury, verbally abusing the judge in a highly offensive manner, questioning her authority and threatening her safety.

Court documents reveal that the man shouted, “Tu hai kya cheez… bahar mil dekhte hai kaise zinda ghar jaati hai,” a chilling threat implying physical harm outside the court premises. The accused also attempted to throw an object at the judge, an act that was narrowly avoided. His lawyer, Atul Kumar, compounded the intimidation by urging the judge to reverse her decision and threatening to lodge complaints against her if she did not comply. Despite the hostile environment, Judge Mangla remained composed and documented the threats in her official order, underscoring the severity of the incident and her resolve to uphold judicial independence.

Background and Legal Proceedings Following the Incident

The cheque bounce case involved dishonouring of a cheque, a criminal offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which carries penalties including imprisonment and fines. The case had been dragging on for six years before the recent verdict. Following the outburst, Magistrate Mangla issued a show-cause notice to the accused’s lawyer, Atul Kumar, demanding an explanation for his conduct and warning of possible contempt of court proceedings.

The lawyer has been asked to submit a written reply at the next hearing. On April 5, the court sentenced the accused to 22 months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹6.65 lakh. However, the sentence was suspended for a month to allow the convict to file an appeal, subject to a bond of ₹30,000. The judge has also expressed her intention to report the threats to the National Commission for Women, highlighting the need for institutional support and protection for women in the judiciary. The Delhi Police and court authorities are reportedly reviewing security protocols to prevent such incidents in the future.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

The blatant threats and abuse directed at a woman judge within the courtroom are deeply troubling and reflect a worrying disregard for the rule of law and respect for judicial authority. Judicial officers must be able to perform their duties without fear of intimidation or violence, especially in cases that may evoke strong emotions. Judge Mangla’s courage and professionalism in the face of such hostility exemplify the strength needed to uphold justice in India’s courts.

At The Logical Indian, we believe that fostering a culture of respect, empathy, and peaceful dialogue within our legal institutions is essential for the health of our democracy. It is imperative that authorities take strict action against those who threaten the judiciary and ensure comprehensive protection for judges, particularly women, who face unique challenges.

How can we, as a society, contribute to creating safer environments for our judicial officers and promote respect for the rule of law? We invite our readers to share their views and engage in a constructive conversation on this critical issue.