He Was In Hangover Of Earlier Exchange; Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate Disrupting Jharkhand HC Proceedings

The Supreme Court, today, refused to quash criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Mahesh Tiwari and asked him to submit an affidavit of unconditional apology before the Jharkhand High Court. 

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Mahesh Tiwari, who allegedly disrupted Jharkhand High Court proceedings by standing directly before the Dais. During the interruption, Tiwari allegedly said that "the country is burning with the judiciary" and insisted on arguing "in his own way," even going so far as to warn the Court "not to cross its limits."

The Court further asked the High Court to consider that apology sympathetically and pass an appropriate order.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "While explaining at length that the Petitioner never meant to cause disrespect to the Hon'ble Judge or obstruct the judicial proceedings, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is extremely repentant of the incident and is willing to tender an unconditional apology. Having regard to the above mentioned stand taken by the Petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with liberty to the Petitioner to submit an affidavit of unconditional apology before the High Court. We request the High Court to consider that apology sympathetically and pass an appropriate order."

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for Tiwari.

To briefly state the facts, the petitioner herein is a practicing lawyer in the Jharkhand High Court. One untoward incident took place on October 16, 2025, in Court No. 24 of the High Court. The said incident was largely reported on social media, and, therefore, a five-Judge bench led by the Chief Justice of the High Court suo motu initiated the criminal contempt of proceedings against the petitioner. Aggrieved by that notice, the Petitioner filed the present appeal.

Senior Advocate Dave submitted, "I was waiting for another matter...Five judges to be constituted, as if I have done something so bad...Kindly see, it became viral on whoever leaks these videos"

Chief Justice replied, "It's not the bench, look at the importance! What a towering personality he must have been that five judges will have to sit to decide."

Dave said, "I'm willing to tender it to your Lordships, you may close it..."

Justice Bagchi said, "Judge wanted to stop him. Then he says, I will argue my way...That is the hangover of the earlier exchange."

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "What is the problem? Why can't he go? Again, that shows his obstinate character...All five judges are familiar faces to him...Then he can go and appear. If he wants to tender an apology, he can tender an apology. If he wants to show his eyes to them, let him show. Then we will also see here. We also know how to deal with."

Chief Justice further added, "Mr Dave, since I have also practised there and spent more than 15 years there. This man wants to go there and say, 'Kya Bigad liya mera, Supreme Court se main order le aaya'.

He added, "You see, he can sit coolly. He should sit with a cool mind in your chamber. Think and discuss. Just listen. If he feels he has done nothing wrong, he should have the moral authority and courage enough to go and contest it respectfully."

Dave replied, "With respect, your lordships have much more experience than I have. This person is 70 years , he has practiced for 40 years. A contempt staring him, his practice will be ruined. If tomorrow he is convicted of contempt. We don't have that much courage to take on ourselves if we are serious practitioners about the contempt that we are facing. We don't have that."

Justice Bagchi said, "We do not wish to make comments about this sort of behaviour. But at every strata of the judicial hierarchy, there are these situations where the creation of friction becomes a matter of professional pride."

Dave replied, "No, no. This is not pride. I am saying, I am apologising to your lordships. Close it."

He added, "The original judge has no problem with it. The five judges, or the Hon'ble Chief Justice, saw some video circulating. These video circulating of court proceedings have now become a menace. So from that cognizance is taken."

The Jharkhand High Court on October 10, 2025, had ordered, "Having perused the video, we find that the same relates to the Court’s proceedings dated 16.10.2025 of Court No.24 held by Justice Rajesh Kumar where the Opposite Party had his case at Serial No.2 of the cause-list and we further find that some orders were passed in that case. However, when the case at Serial No.4 was called and where none of the parties were being 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 brow beat threaten and bully the learned Judge Justice Rajesh Kumar. Further, the Opposite Party has tried to scandalize 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 learned Judge “not to cross his limits,” while going out of all limits insofar as he alone was concerned thereby undermining the majesty and Authority of law."

The High Court had seen a video relating to the Court proceedings that had gone viral on the Internet and other social media. Therefore, they called for the original of the video through the Central Project Coordinator (CPC). 

"Prima facie we are of the considered view that the utterances of the Opposite Party amounts to criminal contempt and while invoking our power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, we direct the Registry to register a suo motu criminal contempt case against the Opposite Party", the High Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter. 

Cause Title: Mahesh Tiwari v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi [Crl. A. 430/2026]