Chief justice of India Surya Kant has sought a detailed report from the Andhra Pradesh High Court (HC) administration after a controversial courtroom exchange in which an HC judge ordered that an advocate be taken into custody for 24 hours during court proceedings, triggering nationwide outrage within the legal fraternity.
The controversy arose during proceedings before justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao earlier this week while hearing a petition challenging the issuance of a lookout circular (LoC) and the impounding of a passport.
A video of the courtroom proceedings, which later went viral on social media and WhatsApp, showed a tense exchange between the bench and the petitioner’s counsel after the Court indicated that it was inclined to adjourn the matter in order to obtain a copy of an earlier order passed in a similar case.
During the exchange, justice Rao questioned the conduct of the advocate and remarked, “Have I decided to dismiss your writ petition? Generally, what the judges will do, they will follow their own orders. Are you thinking you are a great senior advocate? Call the police. You go and file appeal.”
The advocate, appearing visibly distressed, apologised before the Court and said he was in pain. “Sorry... I am begging for your grace, your lordships,” he can be heard as saying with folded hands in the viral video.
The HC, however, recorded in its order that the counsel had behaved 'indolently' and stated that the conduct had been witnessed by other lawyers present in the courtroom. Justice Rao also asked advocates present to identify themselves so that their names could be recorded as witnesses in the order.
The court subsequently directed police personnel to take the advocate into custody for 24 hours.
At another point during the hearing, the judge reportedly remarked that the counsel could next stage a 'dharna' along with the bar body against the order.
However, according to media reports, the custody direction was not implemented after intervention by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar Association, following which the situation de-escalated. The matter was later adjourned until after the summer vacation.
Following widespread criticism from lawyers and bar associations across the country, the issue reached the Supreme Court (SC), where the chief justice sought a report from the Andhra Pradesh HC administration regarding the circumstances leading to the incident and the subsequent withdrawal of the custody direction.
The report is expected to clarify the sequence of events during the hearing, the legal basis for the order, and the reasons why the direction was ultimately not enforced.
The controversy has intensified broader discussions within legal circles regarding judicial restraint, courtroom decorum and the relationship between the bench and the bar. In a post on X, senior counsel Sanjay Hegde noted that ‘judicial legacies are made not only in judgments, but in the memories that you leave in the bar’.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has also written to CJI Surya Kant seeking urgent intervention over the episode.
According to the representation, concerns were raised regarding the propriety of directing police custody of an advocate during proceedings allegedly for failing to produce a copy of an earlier order before the court.
The incident has also prompted strong reactions from several lawyers’ associations, including the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Indian Bar Association (IBA), which reportedly condemned the alleged conduct and called for institutional intervention.
Urging the chief justice to take appropriate measures to sensitise judges, the Bombay Bar Association says such conduct also impacts the justice delivery system, while endorsing similar concerns raised by bar bodies across India. In a statement, it says, "conduct perceived as intimidating, humiliating, or bullying, particularly when directed at younger members of the profession, undermines the relationship of friendship, warmth, trust and confidence that bar and bench share."
The controversy further escalated after the Junior Lawyers and Law Students Association of India reportedly submitted a detailed constitutional complaint to the president of India and the chief justice seeking action against the judge.
The complaint alleged that coercive custody powers cannot be exercised merely over courtroom submissions, procedural lapses or requests for hearing and cited multiple SC and HC judgements concerning judicial restraint and contempt jurisdiction.
The representation relied on several judicial precedents, including CS Karnan contempt case and judgements concerning judicial conduct, contempt powers and treatment of advocates in courtrooms.
Lawyers’ bodies argued that advocates, as officers of the court, are entitled to dignity and professional respect and that intimidation or humiliation of advocates undermines the administration of justice itself.
The incident has revived debate over courtroom conduct and judicial temperament within India’s legal system.
A recent resolution adopted by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad stressed that judges and advocates are jointly responsible for maintaining 'decency and decorum' within and outside courtrooms. The resolution stated that judges must demonstrate 'patience, dignity, neutrality, and courtesy' and warned that 'conduct that humiliates or intimidates advocates is inconsistent with the high standards expected from the bench'.
The resolution also emphasised that advocates, as officers of the court, must maintain discipline, courtesy and professionalism during proceedings.
Several bar associations and lawyers’ groups are reportedly considering coordinated protests, awareness campaigns and nationwide representations demanding safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of contempt and coercive powers during court proceedings.
