New Delhi, Feb 24 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has taken strong exception to threats made by a contemnor during virtual proceedings in a criminal contempt case initiated on a reference from a district judge, warning that such conduct would amount to “compounding of the contempt”.

A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that despite specific directions requiring his physical appearance, respondent Adeeshwar Singhal failed to appear in person and instead joined the hearing through video conferencing.

“The respondent, in spite of our directions to be physically present before this Court, has not appeared in person,” recorded the order passed on February 19.

The Justice Chawla-led Bench further observed that though the respondent had joined the hearing virtually, his conduct during the proceedings was unacceptable.

“While he has joined the proceedings virtually, he has threatened the Court. We take strong exception to the same and have, in fact, warned the respondent that this would amount to compounding of the contempt,” the order said.

Directing strict compliance with its earlier orders, the Delhi High Court again directed the respondent to appear physically on the next date of hearing, cautioning that coercive measures would follow in case of non-compliance.

“We, again, call upon the respondent to appear in person before this Court on the next date of hearing, failing which, we shall be constrained to take appropriate coercive steps to have his presence ensured,” it added.

The court also appointed senior advocate Dr. Amit George as amicus curiae to assist in the matter and directed the registry to supply him with a copy of the paperbook.

Significantly, the Justice Chawla-led Bench ordered that from the next hearing onwards, the proceedings would be recorded and preserved “awaiting further directions of this Court”.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 23, 2026.

The contempt proceedings arise from a reference made in April 2025 by a Shahdara district court judge, alleging that Adeeshwar Singhal had made “scandalous and derogatory remarks” against the judicial officer during virtual proceedings and repeatedly disrupted the hearing despite warnings.

In May last year, a Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar had issued notice to the contemnor to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for making “contumacious statements” against the District Judge.

Subsequent hearings recorded repeated non-compliance with directions for personal appearance.

In an order passed on November 6, 2025, the Delhi High Court had issued bailable warrants after the respondent refused to appear physically and allegedly described the proceedings as “stupid”.

The Delhi High Court later directed issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants in December 2025 after noting that he had used “derogatory and contemptuous words” against judges and had to be removed from the video-conferencing proceedings.

Later, on January 8, 2026, the Justice Chawla-led Bench was informed that the Non-Bailable Warrants could not be served as the respondent was reported to have left the country, prompting directions to the authorities to file a status report on efforts made to trace him and secure his presence.

–IANS

pds/rad