Supreme Court to Advocate: ‘Contest the Contempt Case or Apologise’

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the matter involved questions of conduct and remorse, and held that the appropriate course would be for the lawyer to place his apology before the High Court itself.

“If he feels he has done nothing wrong, then he should have the courage to go and contest. But if he thinks he was wrong, he should go and apologise,” the CJI remarked during the hearing.

The Court noted that the petitioner is a practising Advocate before the Jharkhand High Court and that an “unfortunate incident” took place during proceedings in one of its courts. The episode, which was captured on video, was widely circulated on social media platforms. Taking cognisance of the viral clip, a five-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court had initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the lawyer.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the contempt action was triggered after judges viewed the video circulating online. He flagged a broader concern before the Supreme Court, stating that viral courtroom videos had become a serious menace and often lacked context, yet had the potential to influence judicial perceptions.

The Chief Justice acknowledged the concern, observing that increased circulation of courtroom clips on social media had complicated matters of judicial discipline and propriety.

Dave further submitted that the lawyer did not intend to show disrespect to the judge or obstruct judicial proceedings. He informed the court that the petitioner was deeply repentant over the incident and was willing to tender an unconditional apology to the High Court.

Recording these submissions, the Court held that no further adjudication was required at its end. “We deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition,” the Bench said, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an affidavit of unconditional apology before the Jharkhand High Court.

The Court also requested the High Court to consider the apology “sympathetically” and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

With these observations, the plea was disposed of, leaving it open to the Jharkhand High Court to decide the contempt proceedings after considering the lawyer’s affidavit of apology.

Notably, in October 2025, the Jharkhand High Court had initiated suo motu criminal contempt against Advocate Mahesh Tewari after a heated exchange with Justice Rajesh Kumar during a live-streamed hearing. A 5-judge bench led by CJ Tarlok Singh Chauhan took cognizance.

The incident occurred during the hearing of a plea seeking relief for a widow whose electricity connection had been disconnected over alleged dues of approximately ₹1.30 lakh. As arguments progressed, Justice Rajesh Kumar expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which relief was being sought, remarking that the submissions did not conform to established courtroom ethics.

Questioning the tenor of the arguments, Justice Kumar observed, “What sort of argument is this? Are we doing injustice? If I dismissed your case then injustice has been done? This is the argument?” The judge further remarked that the Bar Council chairman ought to take note of what he described as the “contemptuous” manner in which the case was argued.

At this stage,Tiwari, who had been standing behind, stepped forward and intervened. According to the live-streamed footage, Tiwari raised his hand and pointed towards the Bench, strongly objecting to what he perceived as the humiliation of advocates during court proceedings. “I can argue in my own way, not in your way… Don’t try to humiliate any advocate,” Tiwari was heard saying. He added that he had been practising for over 40 years and cautioned the judge against “crossing the limit.”

Justice Kumar had responded sharply, stating that no lawyer could accuse the court of doing injustice. Tiwari denied having made such an allegation and urged the judge to verify the live recording, contending that it was another lawyer who had used the expression objected to by the Bench. “Please see the recording. I only prayed before your lordship… The country is burning with the judiciary. These are my words,” Tiwari said, while reiterating his objection to what he described as public humiliation of advocates during hearings.