The Delhi High Court delivered a stinging rebuke to an advocate for making “incendiary and scandalous” allegations on social media regarding the Delhi District Court Bar Association elections. While the Court expressed a strong inclination to initiate contempt proceedings and refer the matter to the Bar Council of India (BCI), it ultimately accepted the lawyer’s unconditional apology, issuing a stern warning to maintain the dignity of the institution.
Social Media Conduct Under Scrutiny
The matter arose during the hearing of a petition alleging irregularities in the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA) elections held in March 2025 at the Patiala House Courts. The focus of the proceedings shifted sharply when the Bench took note of a Facebook post by one of the advocates involved, which cast aspersions on the integrity of the election process in a manner the Court found unacceptable.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the case, did not mince words while addressing the conduct of the lawyer. The Court observed that while electioneering is often competitive, it does not grant license to cast unfounded slurs on the judicial or electoral process.
“You are not fit to be a lawyer if these are the sort of posts you put. Election is never friendly, especially bar ones. This does not give you the justification to post all this,” Justice Pushkarna remarked orally during the hearing.
“Nonsense” and “Demeanour”
The Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the advocate’s behavior, labeling the content of the post as “nonsense” and criticizing the justification offered initially.
“I will refer the matter to the Bar Council of India… Such kind of leaders the Bar should never have. The Court is not happy with your demeanour, your justification. Court does not expect Bar leaders to be like this,” the Justice stated, emphasizing that the dignity of the Court is paramount.
Apology Saves the Day
Senior Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the lawyer in question, stepped in to mitigate the damage. Pracha acknowledged that the contents of the Facebook post were “per se false” and tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of his client.
The Court directed Pracha to ensure the immediate deletion of the offending post. “The dignity of the court has to be maintained. You are personally responsible to ensure that it is deleted,” Justice Pushkarna told Pracha.
The Order: A Lenient View
Despite the initial inclination to initiate contempt of court proceedings and refer the advocate to the BCI for disciplinary action, the High Court decided to exercise leniency.
In its order, the Bench noted: “This Court has taken a very serious view of the Facebook post put by the said counsel… However, the said counsel along with other counsels appearing for petitioner have profusely apologised have tendered unconditional apologised. Though this court was not inclined to accept the apology, however, considering the nature of the dispute, the apology is accepted.”
The advocate was pardoned with a strict warning not to upload any future posts that could impinge upon the dignity of the Court.
