'In Poor Taste': Delhi High Court Expresses Displeasure After Lawyer Appears With Red Tape On Lips Claiming He Was 'Silenced' In Court

The Delhi High Court expressed "strong displeasure" with the conduct of a lawyer appearing in a contempt matter with red tape on his lips, which he claimed symbolized that he had been "silenced" during arguments in the hearing of the case. 

During the hearing on December 1, the senior counsel appearing for the Delhi government had apprised the Court about the re-consideration of proposal by the State Government and the fresh offer made to the petitioner by the State Government, in writing. This, was after the court had on an earlier hearing expressed its "intention to initiate contempt proceedings against the senior officers of the State Government". 

A division bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal in its order noted:

"Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Saini, who has not less than 25 years of standing to our knowledge, entered the Court Room leisurely with red stickfast tape on his lips...proposal in the form of offer was made available to the counsel for petitioner, Mr. R.K. Saini. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, explained the proposal to this Court and to the other side. When confronted, Mr. R.K. Saini, Counsel appearing for petitioner removed the red tape from his lips, which initially prompted us to believe that Mr. Saini had some injuries on his face. When inquired, it was informed by Mr. Saini that on the last two hearings, he was stopped midway by the Court during his arguments and as such he has placed those red tapes on his lips, symbolizing that he had been silenced".

The bench said that conduct of the lawyer warranted the court to place on record that the arguments canvassed by the lawyer on last couple of occasions were getting too lengthy and repetitive, and the Court upon appreciating the case of petitioner had requested the counsel to "stop from arguing further" so that the court could hear the response of the other side.

It thereafter said:

"In this context, conduct of Mr. Saini, as demonstrated today in the Court, is completely in poor taste and unexpected of a lawyer of the stature of Mr. Saini who, in our understanding, has standing of more than 25 years. This could have prompted us to pass appropriate orders against Mr. Saini, however, considering his standing, we have refrained ourselves from passing such order. However, we place on record our strong displeasure to the unbecoming and unbefitting conduct of Advocate Mr. R.K. Saini."

On the merits of the matter, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not willing to accept the proposal given by State Government, even if the State Government is willing to increase the amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000.

The senior counsel for the state government sought time to file his response in the form of affidavit to be sworn by some senior officers of the State Government, both in the Contempt Petition, as also the Writ Petition, which was granted by the court.

The court also granted time to petitioner to file rejoinder and listed the matter on January 21, 2026. 

For context, the contempt proceedings were initiated suo-motu by the high court, wherein the grievance of the petitioner was that in terms of the court's  31.10.2011 order in a 1993 writ petition they are yet to be allocated/allotted the promised land under the 20-point programme of the then Prime Minister of India.

In earlier hearings the court was informed by the petitioners/claimants that the claims were filed under the aforesaid scheme far back in 1993 and even after the passing of the judgement dated 31.10.2011, no concrete proposal has been given by the respondent.

The court had earlier noted that the contempt petition had been pending since 11.01.2016 and it appears that from time to time, several orders have been passed. It is a matter of record that initially the stand of the respondent was that the land would be allotted at Rajokri but since no land was available, they were offered the site at Khera Dabar in Najafgarh. 

The court had earlier noted the affidavit of the respondent whereby it is brought out that since no land is available with the GNCTD and the claimants are falling in the EWS category, as a policy decision taken with the participation of the DDA, the claimants are offered 153 EWS flats at pocket-4, Sector-G-7, Narela having plinth area of around 35.50 sq. mtrs. including proportionate common and staircase areas, which residential flats are readily available.

In the alternative the court was told that a decision was  taken to offer each of the claimants an ex gratia payment of compensation to the tune of ₹17 lakhs. Later the contempt plea was directed to be a listed along with the writ petition. 

Case title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v/s  DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR BDO

CONT.CAS(C) 16/2016 & CM APPL. 39550/2024 , CM APPL. 68676/2025.

Click Here To Read/Download Order