The Jharkhand High Court, in an extraordinary proceeding on September 25, 2025, referred the conduct of an advocate to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for examination after he allegedly argued in a “loud speech” and “threatened the Court” following an unfavourable order. The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi described the advocate’s behaviour as “deprecable” and an “attack on the entire judiciary.”
The incident occurred immediately after the court dictated its order rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of the advocate’s clients in a land-grabbing case. The court, which had initially decided it was a “fit case to initiate the criminal contempt proceeding,” ultimately refrained from doing so following a plea for leniency from senior members of the Bar.
The Courtroom Incident
The judgement provides a detailed account of the events that transpired after the bail was denied. According to the court’s order, “the Counsel for the petitioners… started arguing in loud speech in presence of the lawyers who are present in the Court and all have witnessed the same.”
The order further records a specific threat, stating, “The advocate… has threatened the Court to pass the order and he will go to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Justice Dwivedi characterised the behaviour as an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice, noting, “if he will be allowed to go scot free, message will go in the society that any thing can be stopped to be delivered by a Judge for if such type of hooliganism is made in the open Court.” The Court asserted that such conduct “amounts to scandalising the Court itself” and is an “attack on the entire judiciary.”
Contempt Proceedings Dropped After Bar’s Intervention
The Court initially moved to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, citing its jurisdiction to do so. However, the judgement notes that “many members of the Bar including President and Secretary of the Advocate Association requested the Court to give one chance to this Advocate and not to initiate criminal contempt case against him and to take a lenient view.”
Accepting this request, the Court decided against pursuing contempt charges. “In that view of the matter and on the request of the Members of the Bar, this Court is not proceeding in criminal contempt so far the advocate is concerned,” the order stated.
Referral for Professional Misconduct
While dropping the contempt proceedings, the court concluded that the advocate’s conduct warranted professional scrutiny. “However, his conduct requires to be taken care of by the Jharkhand State Bar Council,” Justice Dwivedi directed.
The matter was formally referred to the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council to be looked into. The judgement highlights the gravity of the situation by noting that the Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, “has also come in the Court room and this order is being passed in his presence as well as in presence of President and Secretary of Advocates’ Association, Jharkhand High Court and other members of the Bar who have witnessed the incident.”
The High Court Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Bar Council Chairman forthwith.
Context: The Bail Application
The dramatic courtroom events unfolded during the hearing of anticipatory bail applications in Chira Chas P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025. The petitioners were accused of attempting to grab the land of an 80-year-old man. The court had rejected their bail plea, citing the “serious allegation” and the petitioners’ criminal antecedents, and observing that “such type of crime is very rampant in the State of Jharkhand.”
