“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” becomes rallying cry as Bar bodies across India united.
Indian Bar Association warns of nationwide protest; SCBA and Bar Council of India also condemn alleged conduct of AP High Court Judge.
Adv. Nilesh Ojha stated that “nothing less than prosecution of the concerned Judge is acceptable,” asserting that advocates are officers of the Court and are entitled to the same dignity, respect, and institutional treatment that Judges themselves expect from members of the Bar.
Judges themselves have been punished under contempt jurisdiction for acting contrary to binding Supreme Court directions and constitutional discipline, as seen in M.P. Dwivedi AIR 1996 SC 2299, C.S. Karnan, In re, (2017) 7 SCC 1 , reaffirming that no judicial office is above the rule of law or binding precedents.
In Sailajanand Pande v. Suresh Chandra Gupta, 1968 SCC OnLine Pat 49 it was held that where a Judge acts wholly without jurisdiction and directs unlawful detention, such acts are not protected under judicial immunity, and the concerned Judge may be personally liable to compensate the victim who was illegally detained.
Supreme Court in R.K. Garg v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 166, has emphasized that a Judge must never be discourteous or lose temper in court. A discourteous Judge is akin to an ill-tuned instrument in the administration of justice, means he should be removed forthwith.
In Bidhi Singh v. M.S. Mandyal, 1993 Cri LJ 499, it was held that the use of intimidating language by a Judge is not part of official duty and may attract prosecution under Section 504 IPC without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court ruled that a Presiding Judge is expected to maintain decorum, sobriety, restraint, and temperance in language, and any vituperative outburst even under provocation cannot be justified as an act done in the discharge of official duty.
In Harish Chandra Mishra v. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, 1985 SCC OnLine Pat 213, it is ruled that advocates, being officers of the court, are entitled to the same dignity and respect that Judges expect from them. It is further ruled that the Court clarified the limits of judicial authority in maintaining courtroom discipline. While a Judge has the power to control proceedings in a dignified manner and may initiate contempt action against misconduct by an advocate, the Judge cannot resort to personal remarks, harsh language, or humiliating comments in open court. Such behaviour compromises the dignity of the Bar and undermines professional respect and the judge insulting or intimidating advocates will be liable for action under contempt.
The Full bench of High Court in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Choudhary Qadir Bakhsh, 1949 SCC OnLine Lah 14, sentenced a judge under contempt who insulted an advocate.
In H. Syama Sundara Rao v. Union of India, 2007 Cri. L. J. 2626, it was held that any attempt to threaten, intimidate, or pressurize an advocate so as to prevent him from fearlessly representing his client, raising legitimate defences, or discharging his professional duties, would itself amount to interference with administration of justice and constitute contempt of Court.
In Court on its Own Motion v. Jayant Kashmiri, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7387, the Hon’ble High Court has ruled that the administration of justice cannot be impaired by clothing the professional Advocate with the freedom to fairly and temperately criticise in good faith the impugned judgments and orders.
Recently, Solicitor General of India Sh. Tushar Mehta, in his forthcoming book “The Bench, the Bar and the Bizarre”, made unusually candid observations regarding judicial arrogance, courtroom bullying, and treatment of advocates from the Bench. As reported in national media, he writes:
“Extraordinary courtroom reverence shown worldwide by lawyers to judges has afflicted some judges with a false sense of divinity, turning a few ‘My Lords’ into bullies. Judicial bullying takes many forms. Some judges interrupt counsel incessantly, while others cross the line from firmness to humiliation.”
The Solicitor General further observed that although the judicial system exists primarily for litigants and constitutional justice, advocates are often compelled to function in an atmosphere of excessive deference and asymmetry of power. He sarcastically notes that even obvious legal errors from the Bench are often met first with:
“We bow down to Your Lordship”
before counsel dares to offer an alternative legal submission.
The book reportedly describes how some judges weaponise courtroom authority, status, and contempt powers in a manner that creates fear and humiliation within courtrooms. At the same time, Mehta emphasizes that the judiciary remains the most respected branch of the State, but warns that such respect cannot be sustained merely through coercive contempt powers.
As reported, he writes:
“That respect may be extracted through the blunt instrument of contempt powers, or it may be sustained by commanding the genuine confidence of stakeholders, confidence born of fairness, neutrality and civility in the treatment of litigants and lawyers.”
He also reportedly discusses the broader institutional problem that judges across jurisdictions often resist external oversight or complaint mechanisms on the ground of judicial independence, thereby making issues relating to judicial temperament, bullying, and courtroom conduct particularly sensitive and difficult to address institutionally.
The remarks have triggered significant discussion within legal circles because they come not from an outsider or critic of judiciary, but from a sitting Solicitor General of India and one of the country’s senior-most law officers, thereby lending institutional weight to growing concerns regarding judicial temperament, contempt powers, and treatment of advocates in constitutional courts.
Earlier instances of intemperate or inappropriate remarks from the Judge of the Supreme Court have been viewed seriously by the highest judicial authority, and the imperative of judicial restraint and decorum has been repeatedly and emphatically affirmed. Reports in the public domain have highlighted concerns regarding remarks attributed to Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah — that the Bench would “rip apart” the party before it — which underscore the necessity for strict adherence to established standards of judicial demeanour and propriety. The said remarks drew prompt institutional response: fellow judges and the Chief Justice of India counselled Justice Amanullah to adherence to the standards of judicial conduct authoritatively laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Krishna Swamy v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605, and C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457. The matter was also reported in The Times of India, which editorially reminded that every judge must acquaint himself with the standards of judicial demeanour expected of the high office he holds.
In Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457, it is ruled that the bad behaviour of even one judge carries a rippling effect upon the reputation of the judiciary as a whole, and that damage caused by conduct unbecoming of judicial office has the capacity to rip apart the entire judicial structure erected by the Constitution, it follows ineluctably that intemperate remarks from the Bench — however isolated — cannot be treated as inconsequential. The standard, as this Hon’ble Court has consistently reminded, is one of the highest propriety, and it admits of no exception by reason of the brevity or informality of the occasion.
That it is pertinent to note that the present incident is not the first occasion on which allegations of threats or intimidation of advocates from the Bench have triggered institutional concern within the legal fraternity; that in an earlier and widely reported controversy involving alleged coercive remarks and intimidatory conduct directed against advocates during proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, certain lawyers’ associations had reportedly sought sanction for prosecution and institutional action against Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta for intimidating advocates on multiple occasions — including Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran and sixteen advocates, among them female advocates belonging to backward and Scheduled Caste communities — a precedent which demonstrates that the legal fraternity has consistently and conscientiously invoked available legal and institutional remedies against such conduct regardless of the seniority or constitutional position of the concerned Judges, and which further establishes that the present representation is not an isolated grievance but forms part of a principled and sustained effort by the Bar to defend the constitutional guarantee of fearless advocacy, uphold the binding limits of judicial power, and ensure that no member of the Bar is subjected to intimidation, humiliation, or coercion from the Bench in violation of the rule of law and binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
A major nationwide controversy has erupted within the legal fraternity after the Junior Lawyers and Law Students Association of India reportedly filed a detailed constitutional complaint against Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking initiation of proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), contempt jurisdiction, and immediate institutional action for allegedly acting contrary to binding Supreme Court precedents governing contempt powers and treatment of advocates.
The complaint, addressed to the Hon’ble President of India and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, alleges that the concerned Judge directed coercive custody and intimidation of a junior advocate in open Court in a manner contrary to the binding law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court & High Court Judges.
According to the complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that advocates or litigants cannot be taken into custody merely for inappropriate submissions, scandalous pleadings, courtroom arguments, or requests for hearing, and that coercive powers under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act can be exercised only in exceptional situations involving physical violence or grave physical obstruction of court proceedings, such as in Leila David v. State of Maharashtra.
The complaint further alleges that there exists no legal provision permitting detention of an advocate or litigant for twenty-four hours merely because the Court is displeased with courtroom conduct or submissions.
Major reliefs sought in the complaint
The representation reportedly seeks the following major directions:
- Initiation of proceedings under Sections 2(b), 12 and 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the concerned Judge for wilful disobedience of binding Supreme Court precedents governing contempt jurisdiction and sentencing law;
- Initiation of criminal and disciplinary proceedings under Sections 198, 257, 258 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with corresponding provisions of Sections 166, 219, 220 and 504 IPC, for allegedly directing unlawful detention and custody of a junior advocate without authority of law;
- Immediate withdrawal of judicial work from the concerned Judge on grounds of absence of judicial restraint, lack of judicial temperament, discourtesy toward advocates, and conduct interfering with fearless administration of justice;
- Directions to the National Judicial Academy and all State Judicial Academies to frame mandatory national guidelines and conduct compulsory training programmes regarding:
- constitutional limits of contempt jurisdiction,
- respectful treatment of advocates and litigants,
- sentencing principles in contempt by scandalisation,
- judicial restraint,
- and prevention of misuse of contempt powers against advocates, journalists, litigants, and public servants.
The complaint also relies upon State of Punjab v. Raninder Singh, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the views expressed by Justice Markandey Katju in his famous article “Contempt of Court: The Need for a Fresh Look”, cautioning courts against oversensitivity and mechanical use of contempt powers.
Indian Bar Association warns of nationwide protest; SCBA and Bar Council of India also condemn alleged conduct of AP High Court Judge
The controversy has now escalated into a nationwide institutional confrontation between large sections of the Bar and the conduct allegedly displayed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Apart from the complaint filed by the Junior Lawyers and Law Students Association of India, the incident has also drawn strong reactions from the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of India, both of which have reportedly condemned the alleged treatment meted out to the junior advocate and sought immediate institutional intervention, including withdrawal of judicial work and transfer of the concerned Judge.
Legal bodies across the country have described the incident as a serious threat to fearless advocacy and constitutional court culture.
Reacting sharply to the controversy, Adv. Nilesh Ojha reportedly stated:
“Nothing less than prosecution is acceptable in such a case.”
He further warned that if immediate corrective action is not taken by constitutional authorities, the Indian Bar Association and allied bar organizations may organize a massive protest in Delhi involving lakhs of advocates from across India.
According to persons associated with the campaign, preparations are already underway for:
- coordinated resolutions by bar bodies,
- protest representations,
- nationwide signature campaigns,
- awareness drives,
- and demonstrations demanding constitutional accountability in exercise of contempt powers.
Complaint alleges attack on fearless advocacy
The complaint argues that advocates are officers of the Court and cannot be threatened with police custody merely for courtroom submissions, procedural lapses, requests for hearing, or arguments displeasing to the Bench.
It further alleges that:
attempts to make the Bar fearful, submissive, intimidated, or servile amount to direct interference with administration of justice itself.
The representation heavily relies upon judicial precedents emphasizing that:
- Bench and Bar are equal constitutional partners in justice delivery,
- judicial discourtesy undermines public confidence,
- and contempt powers cannot be converted into instruments of intimidation.
Among the major authorities relied upon are:
- R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras,
- Latief Ahmad Rather v. Shafeeqa Bhat,
- High Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Dasa,
- and Muhammad Shafi v. Choudhary Qadir Bakhsh.
The complaint repeatedly emphasizes that:
the dignity of courts cannot be maintained through fear, humiliation, or custody threats against advocates.
Demand for judicial accountability and nationwide reform
Apart from seeking action against the concerned Judge, the representation also calls for broader judicial reforms including:
- compulsory judicial education programmes,
- nationwide guidelines regarding respectful treatment of advocates,
- sensitization regarding constitutional limits of contempt powers,
- and institutional safeguards against arbitrary detention or coercive orders during court proceedings.
The memorandum emphasizes that:
legitimacy of judiciary in a constitutional democracy rest not upon fear, coercion, or contempt threats, but upon fairness, restraint, dignity, constitutional discipline, and public confidence.
As the controversy intensifies, legal observers believe the issue may evolve into one of the most significant nationwide debates in recent years concerning:
- judicial accountability,
- constitutional limits of contempt jurisdiction,
- treatment of advocates by constitutional courts,
- and the balance between judicial authority and independence of the Bar.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”
The controversy has now reportedly transformed into a larger constitutional movement within the legal fraternity.
Advocates, bar associations, junior lawyers’ groups, and law students’ organizations across multiple states have begun expressing solidarity with the affected junior advocate.
According to lawyers associated with the campaign, the issue is no longer viewed merely as an isolated courtroom episode, but as a broader constitutional issue concerning:
- independence of the Bar,
- fearless advocacy,
- judicial restraint,
- and misuse of contempt powers against young advocates.
The words of Martin Luther King Jr. —
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”
— have reportedly become the central slogan of the emerging nationwide legal movement.
Legal observers note that the controversy has triggered serious discussion regarding:
- constitutional limits upon judicial power,
- proportionality in contempt jurisdiction,
- and the institutional balance between the Bench and the Bar in a constitutional democracy.
Several legal groups are also reportedly considering coordinated nationwide representations, resolutions, awareness campaigns, and protest actions demanding stronger safeguards against arbitrary use of contempt powers against advocates and litigants.
