Recently, Delhi High Court criticised the continued issuance of threats against judges by an individual who is already facing criminal contempt of court proceedings, terming the conduct as grave and unacceptable.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, directed the contemnor, Adeeshwar Singhal, to appear before the Court in person on March 23, warning that failure to do so would invite “appropriate coercive steps” to secure his presence.

While he has joined the proceedings virtually, he has threatened the Court. 

In the said matter, the division bench appoin senior advocate Amit George as amicus curiae in the criminal contempt proceedings against Adeeshwar Singhal.

The contempt action was initiated last year on a reference made by a district judge posted at Karkardooma Courts.

Court records show that Singhal appeared via video conferencing on April 9, 2025, and made scandalous and derogatory remarks against the judge in open court. He repeatedly interrupted the proceedings and defied the Court’s directions, continuing with disruptive and disrespectful conduct despite repeated warnings.

On May 23, 2025, the High Court issued notice to Singhal and directed him to appear in person on August 1, 2025. He failed to do so. Bailable warrants were thereafter issued on November 6, 2025. On that date, Singhal again appeared through video conferencing, refused to disclose his location, and told the Court that he would not face what he termed “stupid proceedings.”

When the matter was taken up on December 2, 2025, the Court was informed that the warrants could not be executed. Singhal once again appeared via video conference and used derogatory and contemptuous language against the judges, prompting the Court to remove him from the proceedings and issue non-bailable warrants.

On January 8, 2026, the police informed the Court that Singhal had left the country.

However, when the matter was listed again on February 19, he appeared through video conferencing and allegedly used threatening language towards the Court. In view of his continued conduct, the Bench directed him to appear in person, warning that failure to comply would invite appropriate steps to secure his presence