MP High Court Accepts Advocate's Apology After Remarks On Bail Granted In Cases Led By Senior Advocates

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently cautioned an advocate to remain conscious of the sanctity of judicial proceedings after he made a submission during a bail hearing suggesting that accused persons represented by senior advocates were granted relief in similar cases, while his client, represented by a junior lawyer, was denied the same benefit.

The matter was heard by Justice Ram Kumar Choubey in a bail application filed by Jagdish Varkade under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court ultimately refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against advocate Sudeep Singh Saini after he tendered an unconditional apology and clarified that his remarks were never intended to lower the dignity of the Court.

According to the order dated May 8, 2026, the controversy arose during the previous hearing on May 6, when counsel for the applicant argued that in other matters of a similar nature, bail had been granted to accused persons represented by senior advocates. He further submitted that denying similar relief to the present applicant merely because his counsel was a junior advocate would not be appropriate.

Taking serious note of the submission, the Court observed in its earlier order that the argument “prima facie, attributes extraneous considerations to the judicial functioning of the Court and appears to be derogatory to the dignity of the High Court.” The Bench had also noted that counsel failed to place any such orders before the Court to substantiate the claim and directed him to produce copies of the alleged similar orders on the next date of hearing.

When the matter was taken up again on May 8, advocate Saini informed the Court that he was neither aware of nor in possession of any order where bail had been granted in a similar matter merely because a senior advocate had appeared for the accused. He later attempted to clarify that his statement was broadly based on an order passed by a coordinate Bench in another matter, namely MCrC No. 6131 of 2026, Ramprasad Vishya v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court, however, reiterated that the statement made at the Bar had earlier appeared to touch upon the judicial functioning of the Court and was “prima facie appeared derogatory to the dignity of this Court and contemptuous in nature.” Justice Choubey then questioned the counsel on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for making such allegations without basis.

In response, advocate Saini submitted that his remarks were never intended to suggest any improper conduct by the Court. He stated that he did not intend to say anything against the dignity of the institution and apologized if the Court found the submission contemptuous in any manner. The order records that the advocate tendered an unconditional apology before the Court.

Accepting the apology, the High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings. However, the Bench cautioned the advocate “to remain conscious of the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to be specific and circumspect while making submissions before this Court.” The Court thereafter directed that the bail application be listed again in the following week for consideration on merits.

Appearing in the matter were advocate Sudeep Singh Saini for the applicant and panel lawyer Nalini Gurung for the State.

Case Title: Jagdish Varkade v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: May 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Ramkumar Choubey