Back
Lawyer's Claim of 'Senior Advocate Bias' in Bail Grants Draws MP High Court Ire – But Apology Saves the Day
In a stark reminder of the boundaries of courtroom advocacy, the has accepted an unconditional apology from advocate , who during a bail hearing alleged judicial favoritism toward senior advocates. The bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey, while sparing contempt proceedings, issued a stern caution to uphold the "." This unfolded in Jagdish Varkade v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC No. 14288 of 2026), a case under the .
The Spark: A Frustrated Plea Turns Controversial
The episode began on , during arguments for regular bail on behalf of applicant Jagdish Varkade, arrested in connection with violations under the . Saini argued that the court had previously granted bail in "similar matters" but only to accused represented by senior advocates. He contended that denying relief to his client—merely because he was a "junior advocate"—would be unfair.
The court viewed this as attributing
"
to the judicial functioning,"
labeling it
"
"
and potentially contemptuous. No supporting orders were cited, prompting the bench to direct Saini to produce them by the next hearing on
.
Backpedal and Apology Under Scrutiny
Returning on
, Saini admitted he was
"neither aware of nor in possession of any order"
from the court granting bail in similar cases to seniors or others. Pressed on the basis of his earlier claim, he referenced a coordinate bench's order in
dated —a bail grant noting cooperation with investigation and prior anticipatory bail by the trial court.
News reports highlighted the gravity, quoting sources that Saini's remarks suggested bias solely based on counsel's seniority. Facing a direct query on why contempt proceedings should not commence, Saini clarified no intent to undermine the court and tendered an unconditional apology.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning on Decorum
Justice Choubey dissected the statement as touching
"upon the judicial functioning of this Court"
in a manner
"
appeared derogatory... and
."
While the referenced coordinate bench order existed, Saini's broader implication of systemic bias crossed into impropriety without evidence.
The ruling emphasized restraint: despite the offense, the apology's sincerity led to mercy. Yet, it drew a clear line—advocates must be "specific and circumspect" to preserve judicial sanctity. No precedents beyond the coordinate bench were invoked, underscoring this as a conduct matter over substantive law.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On the initial remark :
"The aforesaid submission... attributes to the judicial functioning of the Court and appears to be ."
-
Demand for proof :
"Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to place on record a copy of orders passed in the alleged similar matters for perusal of this Court."
-
Contempt threshold :
"Earlier, the statement made at Bar by Shri Saini was found to be an extraneous consideration touching upon the judicial functioning of this Court and appeared derogatory to the dignity of this Court and ."
-
Mercy with warning :
"Considering the aforesaid, when Shri Saini tendered his apology, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceeding against him, however, cautioning him to remain conscious of the and to be specific and circumspect while making submissions before this Court."
Relief Granted, But Bail Awaits
The court closed the contempt chapter, accepting the apology outright. The bail application stands adjourned to the following week for merits consideration, represented for the state by panel lawyer .
This incident serves as a cautionary tale for litigators: passionate advocacy must never veer into insinuations of bias, lest it invite contempt's shadow. For junior advocates pushing tough cases like Essential Commodities violations, it reinforces that merit—and evidence—trumps seniority every time.
