Jharkhand High Court Issues Criminal Contempt Notice to Advocate for 'Bullying' and 'Threatening' Judge

Ranchi, India – In a firm assertion of judicial authority, a five-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate for allegedly attempting to "brow-beat, bully and threaten" a single judge during a court session. The advocate's defiant declaration of having "no remorse or regret" has intensified the scrutiny on this case, which underscores the judiciary's intolerance for conduct that undermines its majesty.

The case, titled Court on its Own Motion v/s Mahesh Tewari , was registered after a video of a contentious exchange between the advocate and Justice Rajesh Kumar went viral on social media, prompting the High Court to take immediate cognizance of the matter.

The Incident Unfolds

The controversy stems from proceedings held on Thursday before Justice Rajesh Kumar. Advocate Mahesh Tewari's matter was listed at serial number 2 and had concluded. However, the High Court’s order notes that when a subsequent matter at serial number 4 was called, Tewari, despite not representing any party in that case, interrupted the proceedings.

The five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ananda Sen, and Rajesh Shankar, reviewed the video and its transcript. The order details the Court's grave view of the advocate's conduct.

"He not only used intemperate language, but also tried to brow beat threaten and bully the learned Judge Justice Rajesh Kumar," the bench observed. The order further highlights that the advocate attempted to "scandalize the Court" with statements such as, “the country is burning with the judiciary.”

According to the Court's order, the advocate persisted that “he would argue in his own way” and admonished the judge “not to cross his limits,” while, in the Court's view, "going out of all limits insofar as he alone was concerned thereby undermining the majesty and Authority of law."

The Court’s Suo Motu Cognizance and the Advocate's Defiance

The rapid escalation of the matter to a five-judge constitutional bench on Friday signifies the seriousness with which the High Court views the incident. The bench verified the authenticity of the viral clip by calling for the original video through the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) and playing it in open court.

Invoking its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, the bench concluded that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was established.

"Prima facie we are of the considered view that the utterances of the Opposite Party amounts to criminal contempt... we direct the Registry to register a suo motu criminal contempt case against the Opposite Party," the order stated.

When the notice was issued, Advocate Tewari, who was present in person, waived the notice but made a striking submission to the bench. The order records that he stated he had "no remorse or regret whatsoever for whatever he has done or said in the Court." This unrepentant stance is likely to be a significant factor in the subsequent proceedings.

The Court has granted Tewari three weeks to file his response. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on November 11.

Legal Analysis: Upholding the Sanctity of Courtroom Decorum

This case brings into sharp focus the critical, yet often delicate, line between zealous advocacy and contemptuous conduct. While legal professionals are expected to argue their clients' cases with vigour and conviction, the Bar Council of India Rules on professional standards mandate that advocates maintain a respectful attitude towards the Courts, recognizing that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community.

Criminal contempt, as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, includes any act that "scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court" or "interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner." The allegations against Tewari—using intemperate language, threatening the judge, and making sweeping, derogatory statements about the judiciary—fall squarely within this definition.

The High Court's power to punish for contempt, enshrined in Article 215, is a constitutional power that cannot be abridged by legislation. It is considered a necessary tool to safeguard the authority and dignity of the courts, ensuring that judicial proceedings can be conducted without fear or favour. The constitution of a five-judge bench to hear this matter is a rare and powerful signal of the institution's intent to protect itself from perceived attacks on its authority.

The advocate's claim of having "no remorse" presents a unique challenge. While an unconditional apology is often considered a mitigating factor in contempt proceedings, the absence of one, coupled with a defiant posture, could be seen by the Court as an aggravating circumstance, reflecting a persistent disregard for the authority of the law. This case will be closely watched by the legal fraternity as a test of the judiciary's resolve to enforce courtroom discipline and as a stark reminder of the professional obligations that bind every officer of the court.