The Jharkhand High Court on Friday initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against advocate Mahesh Tewari following a widely circulated video showing a heated exchange between him and Justice Rajesh Kumar during a hearing on October 16.
A full bench, comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Ananda Sen, and Justice Rajesh Shankar, convened to address the matter. After the hearing, the court directed Mr. Tewari to file his response to the contempt proceedings within three weeks.
Background of the Incident
The events leading to the contempt action unfolded on October 16 in the courtroom of Justice Rajesh Kumar. Advocate Mahesh Tewari was arguing for the restoration of his client’s electricity connection, which had been disconnected by the concerned department over pending bills.
During the proceedings, Mr. Tewari submitted that his client was prepared to deposit Rs 25,000 to facilitate the reconnection. However, Justice Kumar cited a judicial precedent requiring a deposit of 50 per cent of the total outstanding amount. The matter was resolved after the lawyer agreed to have his client deposit a sum of Rs 50,000.
Escalation in the Courtroom
The issue escalated after the conclusion of Mr. Tewari’s case. As the court took up the next matter, Justice Kumar reportedly made observations regarding the manner in which Mr. Tewari had presented his arguments. The judge then addressed the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council, who was present in the court, and asked him to take cognisance of the advocate’s conduct.
In response to the judge’s comments, Mr. Tewari approached the bench and asserted that he would “argue in his own way.” He was also heard stating to the judge, “Don’t cross the limit.”
The exchange was recorded, and the video subsequently went viral across various social media platforms, drawing significant attention. This prompted the High Court to take suo motu cognizance, leading to the constitution of the full bench and the hearing on Friday morning. The bench specifically referenced the viral nature of the incident while asking for the lawyer’s formal response.
