The Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has written to the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent intervention after a young Advocate was sent to 24-hour judicial custody by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao. He said the incident raises serious concerns about judicial temperament and Bar dignit
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.
In his representation, Mishra explained that a video of the court proceedings is circulating widely, and it appears to show Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao directing the young lawyer to be taken into custody.
As described in the letter, the Advocate is seen repeatedly apologising and requesting pardon and compassion, saying that he had not intended any disrespect and that he was in pain.
Even after these repeated requests, the Judge allegedly instructed the Registrar Judicial and police officials to take him away, and two police personnel can be seen entering the courtroom to carry out this direction.
The BCI Chairman wrote that the matter before the Court was only related to the production or availability of an order copy, and the young Advocate did not have the copy with him.
For this reason, according to the letter, he was rebuked publicly and was told “now you will learn,” and was allegedly told that he thought he was a great Senior Advocate with nearly ten years of experience.
Mishra noted that the Judge also pointed to the presence of other lawyers, including a Government counsel, to highlight the conduct of the young lawyer, who was then told to file an appeal or sit on dharna at the Bar Council.
The BCI Chief clearly stated in his letter,
“We don’t find anything wrong with the conduct of the young Lawyer.”
He wrote that if the video and the order reflect the situation correctly, the incident raises very serious issues about judicial temperament, proportionality, fairness, and the dignity of the Bar.
He emphasised that a young lawyer may always be corrected, warned, or proceeded against legally when justified, but sending him to 24-hour judicial custody for such a mistake appears to be extremely inappropriate and harmful to the confidence of the Bar.
Mishra stressed that the Bench and Bar are supposed to work with mutual respect.
He added that the power of the Court should always be used with restraint, compassion, and institutional grace. A young Advocate, he wrote, is not an adversary of the Judge but an officer of the Court who is still learning and growing, and therefore deserves correction without humiliation.
According to the letter, such incidents create fear in young lawyers and have a chilling effect on the profession. The BCI Chairman wrote that the dignity of the Court does not increase when a lawyer is forced to plead for mercy in open Court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse.
Mishra has requested the Chief Justice of India to take immediate institutional notice of the matter and call for the video recording, the order passed, and all related details.
He has also requested appropriate administrative action, including withdrawal of judicial work from the Judge until the matter is reviewed, transfer to a distant High Court, and nomination for training on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional use of judicial authority.
He told the CJI that the representation aims to protect the dignity, moral authority, and public trust in the judiciary.
Mishra added that judges earn respect not through fear, but through fairness, patience, restraint, and constitutional humility.
He ended the letter by requesting early intervention from the CJI so that young Advocates can continue to have faith in the judiciary’s protective and corrective role.
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