The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious concern over the alleged assault on a lawyer inside Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court complex, describing incidents of violence within court premises as “goonda raj” and a failure of the rule of law.

The remarks were made by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while hearing a mention related to the alleged attack. Emphasising the gravity of the matter, the Chief Justice said that violence inside court complexes could not be tolerated under any circumstances.

“This kind of goonda raj is not acceptable to us. It reflects a breakdown of the rule of law,” the Chief Justice observed.

The Court directed the aggrieved lawyer to submit a formal representation to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for appropriate administrative action in connection with the incident.

The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjari. The lawyer informed the Bench that the alleged incident occurred on February 7 in the court of Additional District Judge Harjeet Singh Pal at Tis Hazari Courts.

According to the lawyer, he was appearing on behalf of the accused when the complainant’s counsel, accompanied by several individuals, allegedly assaulted him inside the courtroom. He claimed that he was beaten and that the presiding judge, along with other court staff, was present at the time of the incident.

The Chief Justice asked whether the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had been informed about the incident. Upon being told that no such communication had yet been made, the Bench directed that the matter be taken up administratively.

The Supreme Court instructed the lawyer to write a letter to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, with a copy marked to the Supreme Court, so that the High Court could take cognisance of the allegations and initiate appropriate action. The Bench further advised the lawyer to follow the prescribed procedure and approach the High Court having jurisdiction.

The observations underline the Supreme Court’s concern over maintaining safety and discipline within court premises and ensuring that the justice delivery system functions without fear or intimidation.