The Allahabad High Court held that incorrect judicial orders or heated courtroom exchanges between lawyers and judges do not constitute criminal contempt, observing that such incidents neither scandalise the court nor obstruct justice, while dismissing advocate Arun Mishra’s contempt petition.
The Allahabad High Court has held that even an incorrect judicial order or a heated conversation between a lawyer and a judge in court, by itself, cannot be used as the basis to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against a judge.
A division bench of Justices Salil Kumar Rai and Devendra Singh dismissed a contempt petition filed by practising advocate Arun Mishra. The bench concluded that disagreements or sharp verbal exchanges in the courtroom do not amount to contempt.
“Heated exchanges between the counsel and the court do not amount to contempt of court. Such heated exchanges do not amount to either scandalizing the court or lowering the authority of any court and also do not prejudice or interfere or obstruct the administration of justice.”
According to the petition, Mishra claimed that in November 2025 he asked a single judge to recuse from hearing a particular case, stating that he lacked confidence in that judge. Mishra further alleged that the judge responded in an adverse manner humiliating him and making remarks he believed were contemptuous.
After reviewing the order dated November 26, 2025, the division bench noted that the single judge had repeatedly asked the advocate to proceed with arguments. The bench recorded that the advocate did not want to argue and instead insisted that the court remove the case from its board.
The division bench observed that, in the order passed on that date, the single judge criticised the advocate’s conduct. The order also directed the Registrar General of the High Court to begin the appropriate process for removing Mishra’s name from the High Court roll, and it referred the matter to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for further action.
While assessing the contempt allegations, the division bench pointed out that the affidavit submitted by Mishra did not clearly spell out the specific words or remarks allegedly made by the single judge. The bench also noted that the November 26 order did not contain any of the statements as claimed in the petition.
The Court further explained that even if the bench were to assume that some heated exchange occurred between the judge and the advocate, it would still not meet the requirements of “criminal contempt” under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The bench also clarified that a judicial order that is wrong or legally flawed cannot be challenged through contempt proceedings. It held that such an order must be challenged before the appropriate authority empowered to examine, review, or set it aside.
In addition, the division bench emphasised that contempt jurisdiction is not meant to evaluate the correctness or legality of an order passed by another court.
Regarding the actions taken against the advocate such as initiating steps to remove his name from the High Court roll and referring the matter to the Bar Council the bench held that these aspects also could not be examined in contempt proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner had other legal remedies available to challenge those actions.
Concluding that the contempt petition was not maintainable, the division bench dismissed it by its judgment dated May 11.
Immediately after delivering the judgment, the bench also rejected Mishra’s request for a certificate under Article 134A read with Article 133 of the Constitution, which would have enabled him to file an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE