Scandalising the Court? Allahabad High Court Initiates Contempt Action After Advocate Questions Judge in Open Court

The Allahabad High Court recently directed initiation of contempt proceedings against an advocate after he allegedly made scandalous and derogatory remarks in open court during the hearing of a criminal bail application, leading to a brief disruption of proceedings.

The order was passed by the bench of Justice Santosh Rai in a bail application filed by one Kunal.

When the matter came up for hearing, the counsel for the applicant argued that his client had been falsely implicated. It was specifically contended that although the first information report had been lodged on January 19, 2026, the investigating officer had not recorded the statement of the injured person during the course of the investigation.

The Additional Government Advocate appearing for the state admitted this factual position before the court. According to the FIR, the injured, Yash Jain, had sustained a firearm injury on his chest.

Taking note of the submissions and the admitted position regarding the investigation, court directed the state to file a counter affidavit along with complete medical evidence, including the injury report and the statements of the injured as well as the doctor concerned, within three weeks. The applicant was granted one week thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit, if any. The matter was directed to be listed afresh on March 10, 2026.

However, the proceedings took an unexpected turn immediately after the dictation of the order.

Court recorded that counsel for the applicant began raising his voice in open court and questioned why a counter-affidavit was being called for. As per the order, the counsel allegedly stated that the court did not have the courage to seek an explanation from the investigating officer for not recording the injured’s statement and further remarked that the judge had no authority to pass any order against the investigating officer. The counsel is also recorded to have alleged that the court appeared to be working under government pressure.

Justice Rai noted that the words used, the tone, body language and the manner in which the statements were made were highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory, and tended to lower the authority and dignity of the court in the eyes of those present. Court further recorded that the proceedings remained stalled for about ten minutes on account of the advocate’s conduct.

Court observed that the conduct prima facie indicated an intention to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings. It held that such behaviour fell within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it amounted to scandalising the court and interfering with the administration of justice.

In view of the circumstances, court expressed its opinion that the matter required consideration for initiation of contempt proceedings against the advocate concerned. However, it deemed it appropriate to place the issue before the Chief Justice for suitable action in accordance with law.

Accordingly, court directed that a separate reference be made for initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant rules. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

The bail case was released and the office was directed to list the matter afresh before another bench after obtaining necessary orders from the Chief Justice.

Case Title: Kunal vs. State of U.P.

Order Date: February 12, 2026

Bench: Santosh Rai