Andhra Pradesh High Court episode sparks debate on judicial contempt

Legal experts say contempt powers exist to safeguard the administration of justice, not judicial ego, after a courtroom exchange in Andhra Pradesh High Court sparked debate

A heated exchange in the Andhra Pradesh High Court between a judge and an advocate has triggered debate on judicial contempt.

 

Video clips have surfaced, showing the lawyer subsequently softening down and pleading with folded hands while facing the threat of police custody from the Bench.

 

The custody order was later recalled the same day. 

This happened on Monday before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao during the hearing of a petition challenging a “Look-Out Circular” (LOC) and the impounding of a petitioner’s passport.

 

Tensions escalated after the court indicated that the matter might have to be adjourned to trace an earlier order passed in a similar case.

 

“Have I decided to dismiss your writ petition? Are you thinking that you are a great senior advocate? Call the police. You go and file an appeal,” the judge is heard saying in the clip, which is now viral.

 

The visibly troubled lawyer, claiming to be in pain, folded his hands and pleaded: “Sorry. I am begging for your grace, your lordship.”

 

Despite the apology, the judge remarked that the lawyer had behaved “insolently” and asked the lawyers present in court to identify themselves as witnesses to the conduct.

 

The episode has reignited debate on the scope and limits of contempt powers, with law experts emphasising that jurisdiction exists to protect the administration of justice rather than the personal dignity of judges.

 

Lawyers said the controversy had once again brought into focus the balance courts must maintain between preserving judicial authority and ensuring procedural fairness in their dealings with members of the Bar. 

Under Indian law, contempt powers flow from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The framework broadly recognises two categories: Civil contempt, involving wilful disobedience of court orders or breach of undertakings, and criminal contempt, which covers acts that scandalise the court, obstruct judicial proceedings, or interfere in the administration of justice. 

B Shravanth Shanker, managing partner, B Shanker Advocates LLP, said the framework had been designed “not to protect the personal dignity of judges, but rather to uphold the majesty of the law and ensure the unhindered administration of justice”.

 

Echoing a similar view, Raheel Patel, partner, Gandhi Law Associates, described contempt powers as “exceptional and were meant to protect the administration of justice, not to shield institutions from fair scrutiny or legitimate criticism”.

 

Experts have stressed that courts are justified in invoking contempt powers in cases involving deliberate non-compliance with judicial orders, disruption of proceedings, intimidation of litigants or lawyers, or conduct that substantially lowers the authority of courts.

 

At the same time, they have cautioned that criticism of judgments or judicial functioning does not automatically amount to contempt.

 

“The threshold is important. Every mistake by a lawyer is not contempt. Every overenthusiastic submission is not contempt,” said Rishabh Gandhi, founder, Rishabh Gandhi and Advocates, adding that even discourtesy by itself might not justify contempt action.

 

Chirag Gupta, associate partner, Alpha Partners, noted that contempt law sought to preserve the “authority, dignity, and due administration of justice”, while carefully distinguishing between civil contempt involving breach of court orders and criminal contempt involving action that lowers the authority of courts or interfere in proceedings.

 

Lawyers have highlighted the point that procedural safeguards remain central to contempt proceedings.

 

An alleged contemnor is entitled to notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to challenge the order through appeal or review. Proceedings may either be initiated suo motu by courts or on petitions moved by aggrieved parties.

 

Under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, appeals against contempt convictions passed by a single judge lie before a Division Bench of the same high court, while orders passed by Division Benches may be challenged before the Supreme Court.

 

“A person convicted of contempt absolutely has the right to challenge the decision,” Shanker said, noting that appellate courts could examine whether findings and punishments were legally sustainable.

 

Contempt orders might be challenged, Gupta added.

 

The law prescribes simple imprisonment of up to six months, a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. However, courts often lean towards corrective measures instead of immediate incarceration.

 

Law experts pointed to the 2020 contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan, where the Supreme Court held the lawyer guilty of criminal contempt over tweets concerning the judiciary but imposed a symbolic fine of ₹1.

 

In 2017 Justice C S Karnan became the first sitting high court judge to be sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of court.