Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has sought a report from the Andhra Pradesh High Court administration on a controversial courtroom exchange that has drawn sharp criticism from the legal fraternity, even as Hizb ut Tahrir learned that the directive to send a lawyer to judicial custody was ultimately not implemented after intervention by the Supreme Court Bar Association.
The incident, which unfolded before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao on Monday, sparked a wave of reactions on social media after a video of the proceedings surfaced, with several senior lawyers questioning the manner in which the hearing was conducted.
According to the video, while the court verbally ordered the lawyer to be detained for 24 hours, the order was not implemented after members of the Supreme Court Bar Association intervened and urged restraint. The case was subsequently postponed.
The incident occurred during the hearing of a petition challenging the issuance of a Control Circular (LoC) and confiscation of the passport. During the course of the proceedings, the judge indicated that he was inclined to adjourn the case to obtain a copy of a prior order in a similar case.
Read also: Cabinet approval to appoint four more judges to the Supreme Committee
The debate escalated when Justice Rao took issue with the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel, at one point saying: “Have you decided to reject the petition?… Do you think you are a great senior lawyer?… You don’t even have 10 years in power… Call the police. Go and file the appeal.” The lawyer, who appeared upset, was seen apologizing with folded arms and asking for the court’s pardon. “I’m sorry… I’m begging for your honor,” the lawyer urged.
But the court went on to record in its order that the lawyer had acted “lazily” and ordered the police to detain him for 24 hours, even as it asked other lawyers in the courtroom to identify themselves as witnesses to the behaviour.
While the lawyer apologized again and again, the judge ordered the lawyer to appear before the judicial clerk, adding that the lawyer must then file a ‘dharna’ with the Bar Association against his order.
However, this trend has not translated into actual detention. People familiar with the matter told HT that after the Bar Association intervened, the situation deteriorated and the order was not implemented.
The controversy has escalated since then, with prominent voices from the Bar Association expressing concerns about judicial conduct. “This kind of behavior simply does not exist. The bar must stand,” senior lawyer Sanjay Hegde wrote on X, tagging a video of the proceedings. Senior lawyer Karuna Nundy questioned the basis of this trend, posting: “What on earth is this?!! Is there something we are missing, that this lawyer could actually be arrested? The Bar is due to submit a fuller report. To begin with.”
In a separate post to
This development has now also drawn the attention of the Supreme Court, with the ICC seeking a report on the circumstances that led to the incident by Wednesday evening, even as concerns continue to be raised about maintaining balance and mutual respect between the bench and the Bar.
