A Lawyer's Silent Statement: Taped Mouth in Delhi High Court Sparks Judicial Outrage

Picture this: a lawyer, standing silently in the hallowed halls of the Delhi High Court, his mouth conspicuously taped shut. It wasn't a scene from a dramatic film, but a striking act of protest witnessed just recently, involving advocate Mehmood Pracha. His unusual appearance, an undeniable visual statement, immediately drew the attention—and the sharp rebuke—of the court.

Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the proceedings, didn't mince words. He called the whole spectacle "in poor taste" and genuinely "shocking." The judge, clearly perturbed by the breach of decorum, directly addressed Pracha, urging him to remove the tape. The implication was clear: such a demonstration bordered on contempt of court, a serious matter indeed.

But why the taped mouth? Pracha’s protest, as later explained in a note he submitted to the court, stemmed from deeply held grievances. He alleged persistent harassment of lawyers and ongoing tensions, even clashes, between legal professionals and the police force. For him, this wasn't just a general issue; he claimed to be among those specifically targeted, rendering him, in his own words, unable to speak freely.

This wasn't even Pracha's first silent protest. He had reportedly appeared with his mouth taped in a lower court just the day before, indicating a deliberate and escalating form of dissent. It truly underscored the depth of his frustration and the perceived injustices he felt were being perpetrated against the legal fraternity.

The court, however, stood firm on maintaining its dignity and the proper conduct of its proceedings. Justice Datta, while acknowledging the underlying issues might exist, emphasized that the courtroom was a sacred space for reasoned arguments, not for theatrical displays. He directed Pracha to remove the tape and, importantly, offered him the opportunity to present his case verbally if he wished, before adjourning the matter.

This incident, though seemingly small, highlights a recurring tension point within the justice system, especially in Delhi. While lawyers have every right to protest and voice their concerns, the method chosen in a courtroom setting often clashes with the judiciary's expectation of decorum and the traditional avenues for redress. It leaves one pondering where the line between legitimate protest and maintaining judicial sanctity truly lies.