Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla faces contempt charges for accusing a judge of bias in a bail case.
The Court termed his remarks as serious misconduct and referred the matter for criminal contempt proceedings.
Prayagraj: Today, on June 03, The Allahabad High Court has recently taken a strong step against an advocate who made serious allegations against a judge during a bail hearing.
The Court has directed the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla, who was representing the complainant in a murder case.
The case was being heard by Justice Siddharth, who also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to look into the conduct of Advocate Shukla and examine if it is in line with the standards expected from lawyers.
In the court’s words:
“The registry of this court is directed to place the record of this case before the appropriate court for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate as per section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act within a week.”
The situation arose during the bail plea hearing of an accused in a murder case.
Advocate Shukla, appearing for the complainant, had earlier asked the Court on May 16 to postpone the hearing so that he could make what he called “legal and constitutional submissions” in response to the arguments presented by the senior counsel for the accused.
However, the Court did not allow the adjournment, stating that the complainant’s side had already taken several adjournments in the past.
Still, the Court gave Shukla the liberty to file his submissions in writing along with relevant case laws.
Despite this opportunity, the next day, Advocate Shukla submitted a written note in which he accused the judge of bias.
In his written arguments, Advocate Shukla wrote:
“It is all stand of the counsel for the informant that throughout approach of this Hon’ble Court was biased and not honest. It is all belief of the counsel for the informant that this Hon’ble Court consisting of his Lordship is yet not honest in the matter and is wholly biased.”
Taking serious note of this, the Court observed in its May 28 order:
“A perusal of the aforesaid written submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the informant shows that he has not given any specific reply to the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Rather, he has made allegations against the court that court is biased and dishonest. He has no faith in the court consisting of his Lordship.”
The Court further highlighted the timeline and delay in the matter. It noted that the bail application had been pending since April 2024 and pointed out that the informant had earlier engaged a different lawyer, who did not allow the hearing to move forward for over a year.
After that, Advocate Shukla filed his vakalatnama on May 12, 2025. He said he was not ready to argue, so the case was postponed to May 16 on his request.
The Court further noted:
“When this court on the request of counsel for the applicant directed the application to be listed peremptorily on 12.05.2025, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate appeared on 12.05.2025 and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant. He stated that he is not prepared and the matter was adjourned on his request for 16.05.2025. Counsel for the applicant requested that let the matter be listed peremptorily again since on the next date again informant’s counsel may not appear or file his illness slip to get the case adjourned, hence the case was listed peremptorily on 16.05.2025 among top-10 cases.”
Given these developments and the serious nature of the statements made by Advocate Shukla against the judge, the Court found that the matter should be looked into by a Division Bench that handles contempt cases.
Therefore, the Court ordered that a separate contempt case be registered against the advocate.
Additionally, Justice Siddharth recused himself from the bail matter and asked the court registry to place the case before a different bench after getting directions from the Chief Justice.
The accused in the case was represented by Senior Advocate Kamal Krishna, along with Advocate Rakesh Kumar Rathore. The complainant was represented by Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla.
Case Title:
Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant v State of UP
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Contempt Of Court
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
