Introduction:

In a stern assertion of judicial authority and decorum, the Allahabad High Court has made a separate reference for the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who allegedly accused the Court, during open proceedings, of functioning under governmental pressure and lacking the courage to question the police. The order was passed by Justice Santosh Rai while hearing a bail application in the case titled Kunal vs State of UP.

The Court found the advocate’s remarks to be “highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory,” observing that they prima facie fell within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The incident occurred on February 12, 2026, during the hearing of a bail plea, when the advocate representing the applicant allegedly raised his voice and made statements questioning the authority and independence of the Court.

Taking serious note of the episode, Justice Rai directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders regarding the initiation of formal contempt proceedings. The bail application itself was released from the roster and directed to be listed before another Bench, subject to approval by the Chief Justice.

Arguments Advanced During the Bail Hearing:

The controversy arose during the hearing of a bail application filed by the accused in a criminal case involving allegations of a firearm injury to the chest of the injured victim. The advocate representing the applicant argued that his client had been falsely implicated in the matter.

According to the submissions made before the Court, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered on January 19, 2026. However, it was contended that despite the seriousness of the allegation and the fact that the injured person had allegedly sustained a gunshot wound to the chest, the Investigating Officer (IO) had failed to record the statement of the injured victim. The defence counsel argued that such omission reflected serious lapses in the investigation and cast doubt on the prosecution’s version.

The advocate submitted that the absence of the injured’s statement and other medical evidence undermined the credibility of the prosecution case. He urged the Court to consider these deficiencies while adjudicating the bail application.

After considering the submissions and the material available on record, Justice Rai deemed it appropriate to seek further clarification from the prosecution. The Court directed the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) to file a counter affidavit within three weeks, accompanied by complete medical evidence, including the injury report and the statements of both the injured person and the attending doctor. The matter was ordered to be listed afresh on March 10, 2026.

At this juncture, what began as routine judicial proceedings took an unexpected turn.

The Alleged Contemptuous Conduct:

According to the order recorded by the Court, immediately after the dictation of the directions seeking a counter affidavit, the applicant’s advocate began raising his voice in open court. The Court noted that the advocate questioned why a counter affidavit was being called for and accused the Judge of lacking the courage to seek an explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer for failing to record the injured’s statement.

The advocate allegedly stated that the Court had no authority to pass any order against the Investigating Officer and further insinuated that the Judge appeared to be working under pressure from the Government.

Justice Rai observed that the tone, body language, and manner in which these remarks were made were clearly designed to lower the dignity and authority of the Court in the eyes of the public. The Court recorded that the proceedings remained stalled for approximately ten minutes due to the advocate’s conduct.

The order reflects the Court’s view that such behaviour was not merely an expression of disagreement with a judicial direction but amounted to an attempt to scandalise the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.

Legal Framework: Criminal Contempt:

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

• Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
• Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
• Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

The Court prima facie found that the conduct of the advocate fell squarely within this definition. By accusing the Court of acting under governmental pressure and questioning its authority in open court, the advocate’s statements were perceived as an attempt to undermine public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

The High Court emphasized that criticism of judicial orders must be made within permissible legal limits and through appropriate channels. While fair criticism of judgments is permissible in a democracy, allegations impugning the integrity or independence of a Judge, especially during ongoing proceedings, cross the threshold into contempt.

Court’s Observations and Findings:

Justice Rai’s order reflects a careful yet firm assessment of the incident. The Court observed that the statements made by the advocate were highly objectionable and scandalous. The language used, coupled with the manner of expression, was seen as indicative of an intention to lower the authority and dignity of the Court.

The Court further noted that the proceedings were disrupted for about ten minutes due to the advocate’s behaviour. Such disruption, in the Court’s view, clearly indicated interference with the administration of justice.

Importantly, the Court underscored that a Judge’s authority to call for affidavits, seek explanations, and issue procedural directions is inherent in the judicial function. Suggesting that the Court lacked authority to seek a counter affidavit or to question an Investigating Officer was considered not only legally untenable but also disrespectful.

The allegation that the Court was functioning under governmental pressure was regarded as particularly serious. The judiciary’s independence is a cornerstone of constitutional governance. Statements suggesting executive influence over judicial decision-making strike at the very foundation of public trust in the justice delivery system.

Given these considerations, the Court concluded that the matter warranted initiation of formal contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Transfer of the Bail Matter:

In addition to directing initiation of contempt proceedings, Justice Rai released the bail application from his roster. The Court directed that the matter be listed as a fresh case before another Bench, subject to the Chief Justice’s approval.

This step reflects judicial propriety. Having become the subject of direct allegations by counsel during the hearing, the Judge deemed it appropriate to recuse from further adjudication of the bail plea to avoid any apprehension of bias or conflict.

Such action reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. By transferring the matter, the Court ensured that the accused’s bail plea would be decided by another Bench without the shadow of the contempt incident.

Broader Implications:

This episode highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the obligation to maintain decorum in courtrooms. Advocates are officers of the court and play a vital role in the administration of justice. Their duty extends beyond representing clients; it includes upholding the dignity of the judicial institution.

While robust advocacy and pointed arguments are integral to adversarial litigation, personal attacks on Judges or unfounded allegations of bias undermine institutional integrity. Courts have repeatedly held that contempt jurisdiction is not meant to stifle legitimate criticism but to preserve the authority of the judiciary against scandalous attacks.

The Allahabad High Court’s action signals that conduct crossing the line into scandalisation of the court will invite strict scrutiny. At the same time, the procedural route adopted—placing the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders—ensures that due process will be followed in determining whether contempt proceedings should formally commence.