The Supreme Court strongly reprimanded a man accused of threatening a woman lawyer—appointed as a Court Commissioner—with a pistol during the execution of a commission, observing that his conduct warranted imprisonment.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Joymalya Bagchi directed the accused, Nitin Bansal, to surrender before jail authorities on November 6 before considering his plea against the one-month jail sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court. The matter will next be heard on November 11.

During the hearing, the Bench expressed deep disapproval of Bansal’s behavior, remarking that he had shown no repentance for his actions. Justice Kant observed that the Local Commissioner had shown remarkable restraint, noting, “She could have filed a much more serious complaint.”

The judges also emphasized that the incident occurred in the presence of police officials, implying that the situation could have turned violent if they were not there. “If they weren’t present, something untoward could have happened,” Justice Kant remarked.

Slamming the petitioner’s lack of remorse, Justice Kant said,
“Despite committing such nonsense—for which the High Court should have taken even harsher action—he goes scot-free and still blames the Local Commissioner. Not one word of repentance in his petition! Why should we not enhance the sentence?”

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Bansal, disputed the facts, claiming that several police personnel were present during the commission and that no intimidation took place. He further argued that the “pistol” in question was actually an air gun or toy gun, which was lying on a table and was never brandished.

Justice Kant, however, rejected the explanation, saying, “Just imagine—five police officers were there, and despite that, he created such a scene. Thank God the police were there; otherwise, he might have assaulted her.”

When Farasat suggested that Bansal was willing to tender an unconditional apology, the Court rebuffed him. “He must first go and surrender. Unless he goes to jail, we will not entertain anything,” Justice Kant said. “She has been extremely gracious. He misbehaved with a lady advocate and still shows no remorse.”

Responding to the “toy gun” claim, Justice Kant said the petitioner had misled the High Court by calling a real firearm a toy: “He even misled the Division Bench to say it was a toy gun! What is a toy gun, and why is he showing it to a Local Commissioner?”

Justice Bagchi added, “Even calling it a ‘slash toy gun’ was deliberate. He should be in jail. He intimidated a lady officer of the Court and later filed an alternate affidavit to mislead the judiciary.”

Farasat argued that Bansal had a speech impediment and that the incident may have been misunderstood. A visibly surprised Justice Kant retorted, “With your experience, Mr. Farasat, how can you say that? The lady officer has given a completely honest account.”

The Bench noted that the commission was completed only due to police intervention, remarking that the accused had shown no respect for the Court or its officers.

Concluding the hearing, the Bench dictated its order:

“No ground to entertain the interim prayer. Let the petitioner first surrender before jail authorities on November 6.”

The case originated from suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court in a matter involving the illegal disposal of 30,000 tons of industrial coal.

In May last year, Bansal’s father was restrained from dealing with the coal stock. Following allegations of contempt, the Court appointed a woman Local Commissioner to inspect the premises in Faridabad in July 2024, accompanied by police officers.

In her report, the Commissioner stated that Bansal was non-cooperative, intimidated her, and placed a pistol on the table during the inspection. The weapon was confiscated by police as it appeared unlicensed, leading to criminal proceedings.

Bansal later claimed that the object was merely a toy gun, but upon examination, it was found to be a real firearm. The High Court held that his plea was “false and misleading,” intended “to pull wool over the eyes of the Court.”

The High Court concluded that Bansal had obstructed the Commissioner’s work, shown no remorse, and that his apology was insincere. It further observed that a Local Commissioner is an extension of the Court itself, and by threatening her, Bansal had undermined the dignity of the judiciary.

Case Title: Nitin Bansal v. The State of Delhi
Case No.: SLP (Crl) No. 17468/2025