Jharkhand High Court Closes Contempt Case Against Lawyer Who Asked Judge Not To Cross Limits; Accepts His Unconditional Apology
The High Court was considering a criminal contempt case initiated against the Advocate.
The Jharkhand High Court has dropped contempt proceedings against an Advocate who asked a Judge not to cross limits after accepting his apology. The High Court also held that an Advocate with over 40 years of legal practice is expected to show greater restraint, if not circumspection.
The High Court was considering a criminal contempt case initiated against the Advocate.
The 5-Judge Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Rajesh Shankar stated, “An Advocate with over 40 years of legal practice is expected to show greater restraint, if not circumspection. He is as much an Officer of the Court as the Judge presiding over it. His utterances and conduct in the Court are not directed only to the presiding officer but to the institution itself. Therefore, he cannot afford to exhibit disrespect or speak words or otherwise conduct himself to scandalise or tend to lower the authority of any Court.”
The opposite party appeared in-person.
Factual Background
On October 16, 2025, the contemnor made some statements in the Court Room presided over by Justice Rajesh Kumar. A video clip that captured this interaction between the contemnor and the Presiding Judge went viral on the Internet and other social media platforms. The then Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, and four other Judges of the Court took cognisance of the incident as captured in the video clip and ordered the registration of a criminal contempt case.
The court proceedings in question related to the proceedings held by Justice Rajesh Kumar, where the Opposite Party contemnor had his case at Serial No.2 of the cause-list, and some orders were passed in that case. The case at Serial No.4 was called, and none of the parties was represented by the Opposite Party, yet the Opposite Party stood up in front of the Dais and interrupted the Court’s proceedings. He not only used intemperate language, but also tried to browbeat, threaten and bully Justice Kumar. The Opposite Party tried to scandalise the Court by stating that, “the country is burning with the judiciary” and persisted that “he would argue in his own way” and rather asked the Judge “not to cross his limits”.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the transcript of the video recording of the incident and the supplementary affidavit in which the contemnor expressed regret for the incident and tendered an unconditional apology, the Bench noted, “Even in his interim reply, the contemnor, after referring to his “emotional circumstances”, unconditionally retracted those objectionable expressions.”
The Bench noted that the contemnor had also reaffirmed his respect for the Court and gave an assurance of his commitment to maintaining the decorum of the Bar and the Bench.
The Bench stated, “Upon due consideration of the pleas, transcript, the video clip and the law on the subject, we are inclined to accept the contemnor’s unconditional apology to this Court. However, this is not because we regard the contemnor’s conduct and utterances in the Court as not being contumacious or tending to scandalise or lower the authority of the Court. The petitioner’s utterances and his conduct in the Court were indeed regrettable, as was accepted by him in his interim reply and the supplementary affidavit.”
The Bench also noticed that the apology in the case was tendered at a sufficiently early stage of the contempt proceedings, and in the interim reply, the contemnor had expressed his regrets and acknowledged that some of his utterances must have crossed the limits expected of an officer of the Court.
The Bench also held, “Therefore, having considered the facts, circumstances and the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we accept the contemnor’s apology and drop the contempt proceedings. We do so in the fond hope and expectation that the contemnor, a legal practitioner in this Court who has practised for more than four decades, will, in future, display restraint and not indulge in any misadventure of scandalising or lowering the authority of this institution, or otherwise interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.”
Cause Title: The Court on its Own Motion v. Mahesh Tewari (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:4155-FB)