The Supreme Court on Friday directed a Jharkhand-based lawyer to tender an unconditional apology before the Jharkhand High Court in connection with suo-motu contempt proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings stemmed from a viral courtroom exchange wherein the lawyer allegedly told a High Court Judge, “Don’t cross the limit.”
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition filed by Advocate Mahesh Tiwari, granting him the liberty to file an unconditional apology before the five-judge Bench of the High Court which had issued the contempt notice.
Background of the Controversy
The incident dates back to October 16 of the previous year during a hearing before Justice Rajesh Kumar at the Jharkhand High Court. The lawyer, Mahesh Tiwari, was representing a client seeking the restoration of an electricity connection.
During the proceedings, the lawyer offered a deposit of Rs 25,000 on behalf of his client. However, the Court, citing precedents, indicated that 50 percent of the total arrears was required. While the matter was eventually resolved with a deposit of Rs 50,000, the situation escalated after the conclusion of the arguments.
Justice Kumar reportedly made certain observations regarding the lawyer’s manner of argument and asked the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council to take cognizance of his conduct. In response, the lawyer reportedly approached the Bench and asserted he would “argue in his own way,” telling the Judge, “Don’t cross the limit.”
Clips of the live-streamed proceedings went viral on social media, prompting a five-judge Bench of the High Court—comprising the then Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ananda Sen, and Rajesh Shankar—to take suo-motu cognizance of the matter and issue a notice to the lawyer.
“Obstinate Character”: SC’s Stern Remarks
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the lawyer was “extremely repentant” and prepared to render an unconditional apology.
However, the Supreme Court Bench expressed stern reservations regarding the conduct of the lawyer.
CJI Surya Kant remarked on the lawyer’s apparent defiance, observing, “Why cannot he explain this before the judges? This is his obstinate character. Let him face them… let him explain. If he wants to show eyes there… let him show and then we will see. We know how to deal with this.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also weighed in on the issue of courtroom decorum, noting a decline in professional standards. “In every strata of judiciary… there are issues that creation of friction becomes a matter of professional pride,” Justice Bagchi observed.
“Video Proceedings Have Become a Menace”
Addressing the impact of live-streaming on the legal profession, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the digital broadcasting of court proceedings has introduced new challenges for the bar.
“These video proceedings of court hearings have become a menace. A notice for the lawyer is enough to destroy the career,” Dave submitted.
The Order
Taking into consideration the submission that the petitioner did not intend to cause disrespect to the Judge or obstruct judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court disposed of the plea.
“Aggrieved by the criminal contempt notice the petitioner is before us.. while explaining at length that the petitioner did not mean to cause disrespect to Hon’ble judge or obstruct the judicial proceedings….the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is extremely repentant and is willing to render unconditional apology,” the Bench noted.
The Apex Court granted the lawyer liberty to submit an affidavit of unconditional apology before the High Court and requested the High Court to consider the apology “sympathetically.”
