Young members of the Bar have strongly criticised the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association over its 06 May 2026 resolution, expressing deep disappointment. They said no advocate, especially a newly enrolled lawyer, deserves to be threatened with judicial custody for placing a file loudly.
Young members of the Bar have written a strong letter to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association expressing deep disappointment with the resolution passed on 06 May 2026 and the letter sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
In their communication dated 07 May 2026, the young advocates said they were upset because the resolution and the letter did not reflect their voice.
They reminded the Association that the justice system expects the Bar and the Bench to treat each other with dignity and mutual respect, and that the Association represents both senior and junior members.
The young lawyers said that no advocate deserves to be threatened with judicial custody for placing a file loudly, especially a newly enrolled advocate.
They questioned whether the bench’s response was proportional to the action.
They said the Association failed to consider this while passing the resolution. They added that they were disturbed that the Association had called the matter “amicably settled”, stating they could not understand what kind of amicable settlement could justify the reaction of the Learned Judge.
They also expressed shock over being told that a newly elected member of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh allegedly suggested that the young advocate should “kneel down before the Learned Judge and be slapped, if needed”.
They said they hoped that this or the idea of making him stand in court till evening was not part of any so-called settlement proposed by senior members.
The young advocates said they wrote the letter in good faith because incidents like this must be condemned.
They said that even if a junior advocate acted in a way that affected the Court’s sentiments, without any deliberate disrespect, the Court should “teach and educate the counsels on the right procedure with dignity and respect.”
They added that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a systematic problem where counsels are degraded and humiliated, leaving young lawyers to fend for themselves.
They said junior advocates already have a very difficult professional life, and only a small section of law graduates choose this path. According to them, such incidents cause “great trauma” to young lawyers and discourage new graduates.
They also pointed out that the video showed the young advocate standing with folded hands, begging for the Learned Judge’s mercy and apologising repeatedly.
They said that sending an advocate to judicial custody or prison “without giving him an opportunity of being heard just for dropping a file, cannot be accepted under any premise.”
They explained that if the Learned Judge felt the advocate’s behaviour was indolent, he could have instead educated him on proper court etiquette, issued contempt proceedings, or referred him to the Bar Council. They said this issue raises questions of judicial propriety and cannot be treated as a stand-alone matter.
The letter also said lawyers coming from different backgrounds need more support and guidance.
They clarified,
“We are not fighting judiciary as a whole; instead we are seeking strengthening the Bar and Bench relation.”
They criticised the Executive Committee for passing a resolution and issuing a press statement “in a hurry” which did not reflect the views of the Bar members. They said they “beg to differ” from the Association’s stand and stated that they “unequivocally condemn the act.”
They declared their support for the young advocate involved and requested that the Association also stand with them in future.
The young lawyers asked for two main actions. First, they sought the appointment of an enquiry committee regarding the reported suggestion that the young advocate should kneel or be slapped, saying that such behaviour showed that the concerned Bar Council member was not fit to hold office.
Second, they requested the withdrawal of the 06 May resolution and a fresh condemnation of the incident, along with a general body meeting to discuss the problems faced by junior advocates and to place these concerns before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and other judges for better implementation and stronger mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench.
Earlier, The Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, has written a strong letter to the Chief Justice of India seeking immediate institutional intervention after a young Advocate was reportedly sent to judicial custody for 24 hours by Hon’ble Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 5 May 2026.
The BCI Chief said the incident has created deep concern within the legal fraternity and needs urgent attention from the Supreme Court.
Background
Recently, The Andhra Pradesh High Court saw a heated moment in which it warned that an advocate could be sent to police custody, while observing that the lawyer had acted in an indolent manner. The episode drew broad attention after a video of the exchange went viral on social media and messaging platforms.
The incident occurred during the hearing of a writ petition challenging the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against a litigant and the seizure of his passport. At the beginning of the proceedings, the Court indicated that it was likely to adjourn the matter. It was during this stage that the Bench and the petitioner’s counsel exchanged words.
While addressing the counsel, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao showed clear displeasure and said:
“Have I decided to dismiss your writ petition? Generally what the judges will do, they will follow their own orders. Are you thinking [you] are a great Senior Advocate? Call the police. You go and file appeal,”
The advocate then responded that he was unwell and experiencing discomfort. While folding his hands in front of the Bench he pleaded to the Court:
“Sorry… I am begging for your grace, your lordships,”
Although the Court clarified that the adjournment was intended so it could obtain a copy of an earlier judgment from a similar matter, the Bench still recorded its displeasure with the counsel’s conduct, noting:
“Counsel for the petitioner has behaved indolently and same has been witnessed by counsel…,”
The Court also ordered that the presence of other advocates in the courtroom should be documented as witnesses. Later, it directed the police to take the advocate into custody for 24 hours.
As the advocate continued to seek leniency, the Court reacted sharply, saying:
“Don’t say anything counsel,”
The Bench also remarked that, if the advocate wished, he could arrange a protest or dharna along with the Bar Association against the Court’s order. However, the exact observation or action that triggered the Court’s strong response was not clearly evident from the available details.
After the High Court Bar Association intervened, the High Court reconsidered its decision and withdrew the direction to send the advocate to police custody. The case has since been adjourned and will be listed after the Court’s upcoming summer vacation.
The incident has since prompted debate within the legal community on courtroom decorum, the conduct of judicial proceedings, and how to maintain discipline while still ensuring advocates are treated fairly.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE