Dhananjay Sharma v State of Haryana

• A group of advocates in Haryana decided to collectively boycott the court of a particular judicial officer.
• The boycott lasted several days, paralysing judicial proceedings.
• The advocates alleged bias and rude behaviour by the judicial officer as justification.
• The judge reported the matter as criminal contempt.

1. Whether collective boycott of a particular judge by a group of advocates constitutes criminal contempt.

• Collective boycott of a judge is criminal contempt under S.2(c)(iii) (interference with administration of justice).
• Grievances against a judicial officer must be addressed through legitimate channels: complaint to the Chief Justice, administrative review, judicial accountability mechanisms.
• Self-help by the Bar is impermissible. Lawyers cannot take the law into their own hands.
• Litigants are the victims, not the judge. Paralysing proceedings denies the public their right to access justice.

The administration of justice is a public function that cannot be held hostage to the Bar's grievances against individual judges. Legitimate remedies exist for complaints against judicial officers. Extra-judicial pressure through boycott undermines the rule of law and constitutes interference with the due course of justice.