Jharkhand HC Refers Advocate to Bar Council for 'Attack on the Judiciary' After Courtroom Outburst

RANCHI – In a strongly worded order that underscores the paramount importance of courtroom decorum and judicial authority, the Jharkhand High Court has referred the conduct of an advocate to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for disciplinary examination. The advocate, Rakesh Kumar, allegedly engaged in "loud speech" and "threatened the Court" immediately after an unfavourable order was passed in an anticipatory bail matter.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while initially deeming it a "fit case to initiate the criminal contempt proceeding," ultimately refrained from doing so following a collective plea for leniency from senior members of the Bar. However, the Court made it clear that such behaviour, described as "hooliganism" and an "attack on the entire judiciary," could not be ignored and warranted scrutiny by the advocate's regulatory body.

The Courtroom Incident: A Flashpoint in Proceedings

The dramatic events unfolded on September 25, 2025, during the hearing of anticipatory bail applications in Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Verma v. The State of Jharkhand and another (A.B.A. No. 5362 of 2025). The case involved serious allegations of land grabbing from an 80-year-old individual, with the petitioners facing charges under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including rioting, extortion, and house-trespass.

After considering the arguments, the Court rejected the bail plea, citing the gravity of the allegations and the petitioners' criminal history. According to the Court's detailed order, what followed was a severe breach of professional conduct.

The order records that immediately after the judgment was dictated, Advocate Rakesh Kumar "started arguing in loud speech in presence of the lawyers who are present in the Court and all have witnessed the same." More alarmingly, the Court noted a direct challenge to its authority, stating, "The advocate… has threatened the Court to pass the order and he will go to the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Judicial Rebuke: An 'Attack on the Entire Judiciary'

Justice Dwivedi characterised the advocate's behaviour not merely as disrespectful but as a direct attempt to undermine the administration of justice. In a powerful observation on the potential societal impact of such conduct, the Court stated:

"In the light of above and seeing the conduct of the Advocate-Mr. Rakesh Kumar, if he will be allowed to go scot free, message will go in the society that any thing can be stopped to be delivered by a Judge for if such type of hooliganism is made in the open Court."

The Court elaborated that such actions transcend an affront to an individual judge and strike at the core of the judicial institution itself. Justice Dwivedi opined that the advocate's behaviour was an "attempt... to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice" which "amounts to scandalizing the Court itself." He added, "This is not a question of particular Single Judge. This is attack on the entire judiciary by a practising advocate.”

The judgment emphasized that the foundation of the justice system rests on public trust and confidence in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice, a foundation that is eroded by such displays of unprofessionalism.

Jurisdiction, Contempt, and the Bar's Intervention

Before deciding the course of action, the Court addressed its own power to act. Justice Dwivedi affirmed the authority of a Single Judge to initiate and punish for contempt, noting that the Contempt of Courts Act places no "blanket bar on the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by a Single Judge altogether." This assertion reinforces that individual benches are fully empowered to maintain the dignity and authority of the court.

Despite this clear authority and the Court's initial inclination to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, the situation was de-escalated by the intervention of the legal fraternity. The order notes that "many members of the Bar including President and Secretary of the Advocate Association requested the Court to give one chance to this Advocate and not to initiate criminal contempt case against him and to take a lenient view."

Significantly, the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, was also present in the courtroom and witnessed the proceedings.

From Contempt to Professional Scrutiny

Heeding the request of the Bar leaders, the Court chose a path of professional accountability over punitive contempt action. "In that view of the matter and on the request of the Members of the Bar, this Court is not proceeding in criminal contempt so far the advocate is concerned," the order stated.

However, the Court was unequivocal that the matter could not be entirely dismissed. Concluding that the advocate's "deprecable" behaviour required professional oversight, Justice Dwivedi directed that the issue be referred to the state's highest regulatory body for lawyers. "However, his conduct requires to be taken care of by the Jharkhand State Bar Council," the order mandated, formally referring the matter to the Chairman for examination.

The High Court Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council forthwith, ensuring the matter receives prompt attention.

Legal Implications and Professional Standards

This incident serves as a critical case study on the boundaries of zealous advocacy and the non-negotiable standards of professional conduct. While lawyers are expected to argue their client's case vigorously, this duty does not extend to intimidating the bench, scandalizing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.

The Court's decision to refer the matter to the Bar Council highlights the principle of self-regulation within the legal profession. It places the onus on the Bar Council to uphold the standards of the profession and ensure its members adhere to the code of ethics. This approach maintains the delicate balance in the Bar-Bench relationship, allowing the profession's own leadership to address misconduct internally while preserving the court's ultimate power of contempt as a tool of last resort.

For legal practitioners, the order is a stark reminder that the privilege of appearing before the court comes with the profound responsibility to maintain its dignity. The line between a passionate appeal to a higher court and a threat intended to pressure a judge is one that must never be crossed.