Jharkhand High Court Initiates Suo-Motu Criminal Contempt Against Lawyer Seen On Video Having Heated Exchange With Judge

The Jharkhand High Court on Friday (October 17) initiated suo-motu criminal contempt against a lawyer who was seen in a video clip involved in a heated exchange with a single judge during court proceedings on Thursday.

A five judge bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Rajesh Shankar heard the suo motu contempt case.

As per case information on the high court website the matter has been listed for November 11.

A detailed copy of the order from today's proceedings is awaited.

Earlier on Thursday, the advocate had appeared in a matter concerning disconnection of a woman's electricity connection who had not paid electricity bill, wherein the court in its order had directed that if the "petitioner deposits Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards electricity bill then the respondent No.2 is directed to restore the electric connection of the petitioner within 24 hours on deposition of the amount".

As per the live stream of proceedings on high court's YouTube channel, during the hearing the advocate had sought some indulgence on humanitarian ground.

"Whatever falls from your lordships. We will deposit the money. She is an aged and weak lady. Now she cannot stay there. Paani nahi aa raha hai, kuch nahi aa raha hai. Minimum your lordship. 25,000. Rest we will deposit. Its not a one month bill. It has been going on for 4-5 years.

"There is a bill. It is a commercial transaction. You will have to pay for that," the court orally said. To which the advocate said that it should be in accordance with law.

He said, "At present it is about necessity. A person without electricity cannot stay for a single minute".

To this court orally said, "You mentioned the matter yesterday it was listed today. I have already said. We are a court of a law not a court of justice. Court of law, if you can show the calculations and said that according to us this is the bill...this bill is wrong. So according to admitted claim we could have done. Those pleadings are not there...I can't any order...hawa mein thodi kardenge (can't pass an order in the air)...there has to be some basis...50% basis is a declared precedent, which is followed, we will follow it," the court further orally said.

To this the lawyer said, "If it (bill) can be Rs.1 Lakh, then Rs. 50,000 we will manage from somewhere".

"Manage?...Aaap aisi baat mat boliye. This is not a court of mercy. I am not a court of mercy...okay let it be 50,000," the court said.

Pursuant to this the court passed the order directing if the amount is deposited then the authorities are directed to restore the electricity within 24 hours.

Thereafter the court while hearing another matter, orally said, "Aap khada hoke ki widow hain, gareeb hain, koi pleading nahi...agar hum nahi stay denge toh anaay kardenge(You stand up and say she is a widow, she is poor and that if stay is not given it will amount to injustice....that too without any pleading)...what sort of an argument is going on? We are doing injustice? If I am dismissing on case then great injustice is being done, this is the argument? Aur Chairman sahab baith ke sunte hain. Bar Council ke Chairman ko notice karna padega..."

The judge thereafter addressed the State Bar Council's Chairman and said, "This the way your advocate will argue the case?"

To this the lawyer approached the bench and responded, "Your lordships, are telling me? I can argue in my own way. Not in your way in which you say...please mind that".

To this the Judge said, "You can't say that the court is doing injustice. Video recording is there". To which the lawyer said, "I only prayed before your lordship. Don't try to humiliate any advocate".

The Judge thereafter said, "It is a question of humiliation to a judge"

The lawyer then said,"Please don't try to humiliate any person. The country is burning...with the judiciary. These are my words. Don't try to humiliate any advocate. Aap bohot zyada jaante hain aap judge ho gaye. Hum log nahi jaante hum log vakeel hain (You know a lot so you are a judge, we don't know so we are advocates)".

"But you have to argue in a proper manner," the judge said.

To this the lawyer said, "I will argue in my own. Don't cross the limit. Please don't cross the limit. I have already practiced for the last 40 years".

The judge thereafter said, "Request to the Chief Justice to change my roster".

Case title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS MAHESH TEWARI

Cont.(Crl)/3/2025