Allahabad High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate For Alleging Judicial Bias During Bail Hearing
Advocate accused a judge of bias during a bail hearing.
Justice Siddharth, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court directed the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against an Advocate after he accused a sitting judge of being biased and dishonest during the hearing of a bail application in a murder case. The Court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to examine his conduct and determine whether it aligns with the ethical standards expected of advocates.
During a hearing he requested an adjournment to respond to the submissions made by the accused’s counsel. However, the Court denied the request, noting that several adjournments had already been granted to the complainant’s side. Nevertheless, he was given liberty to file written submissions, including relevant case law.
Instead of responding to the legal arguments, he submitted a written note on the following day in which he made serious allegations against the court. He wrote, “It is all stand of the counsel for the informant that throughout approach of this Hon'ble Court was biased and not honest. It is all belief of the counsel for the informant that this Hon’ble Court consisting of his Lordship is yet not honest in the matter and is wholly biased.”
A Bench of Justice Siddharth said, “A perusal of the aforesaid written submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the informant shows that he has not given any specific reply to the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Rather, he has made allegations against the court that court is biased and dishonest. He has no faith in the court consisting of his Lordship.”
The Court further noted that the bail application had been pending since April 2024 and had already seen significant delays. Initially, another counsel was appearing for the informant but avoided the hearing for over a year. When the matter was finally listed peremptorily he entered appearance by filing his vakalatnama and sought further time to prepare. The case was then adjourned to May 16, 2025. On that date as well, he did not argue the case but instead submitted a written note containing the disparaging remarks.
Given the gravity of the allegations, the Court concluded that the matter warranted consideration by a Division Bench authorized to hear contempt proceedings. Accordingly, it directed, “The registry of this court is directed to place the record of this case before the appropriate court for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate as per section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act within a week.”
The Court also recused itself from hearing the bail plea and ordered that it be listed before another bench, subject to directions from the Chief Justice.
Cause Title: Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant v. State of UP
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Kamal Krishna, Advocates Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Harish Chandra Shukla, Sanjeev Kumar, Shashi Kumar Mishra
Respondent: Advocate Narendra Singh
