The Supreme Court of India registered a PIL based on a Supreme Court Bar Association resolution over allegations that an Andhra Pradesh High Court judge ordered a young advocate into 24-hour judicial custody following a procedural lapse during court proceedings.
The Supreme Court registered a case by treating a resolution passed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), following concerns raised over an incident involving an Andhra Pradesh High Court judge. The controversy centres on allegations that the judge directed a young advocate to be sent to judicial custody for 24 hours due to a procedural lapse during court proceedings.
According to details listed on the Supreme Court’s website, the matter has been tentatively scheduled for hearing on May 15. The development comes at a time when bar associations and legal bodies across India have criticised the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The controversy relates to proceedings held on May 5, during the hearing of a petition challenging a Look Out Circular (LOC) and the impounding of a litigant’s passport. Court-related records indicate that, during the course of the hearing, the judge allegedly reprimanded a young lawyer for failing to produce a copy of an order. It is reported that the judge then directed court staff and police personnel to take the advocate into custody for 24 hours, as the matter proceeded before the Bench.
A video clip of the courtroom exchange later surfaced on social media, sparking widespread outrage within the legal fraternity. The footage reportedly captured the advocate repeatedly apologizing and pleading for leniency while standing before the Bench.
In response to the incident, the SCBA passed a resolution on May 6, expressing strong disapproval and urging the Chief Justice of India to intervene.
The resolution stated,
“The SCBA expresses its deep concern and shock at the reported incident dated May 5, 2026, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein a young advocate was allegedly directed to be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours during court proceedings before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao,”
The SCBA noted that actions that instil fear, humiliation, or intimidation among junior members of the Bar can have serious consequences for the independence of the legal profession and for the functioning of the justice delivery system.
The association said,
“The SCBA respectfully urges the CJI to kindly take appropriate institutional cognisance of the matter, graciously call for the relevant records and proceedings, and consider such corrective and administrative measures as may be deemed appropriate in the interest of preserving public confidence in the judiciary and maintaining cordial bar-bench relations,”
The resolution further emphasised that the relationship between the Bench and the Bar depends on mutual respect and institutional balance, along with dignity and patience. The resolution further stressed that the relationship between the Bench and the Bar rests on mutual respect, institutional balance, dignity, and patience. It also reiterated that advocates serve as officers of the court and deserve to be treated with fairness and proportionality.
It said,
“While the authority and majesty of courts must always be respected and maintained, the exercise of judicial powers must equally reflect restraint, proportionality, fairness, and compassion,”
The SCBA also underlined that real judicial strength is reflected through patience and controlled conduct particularly when interacting with junior advocates who are still learning within the profession.
The matter has also drawn attention from the Bar Council of India (BCI), which is a statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession. The BCI has similarly called for urgent intervention from the Chief Justice of India.
In its representation, the BCI referred to the viral video and raised concerns over the judge’s conduct. It indicated that, during the proceedings, the advocate had reportedly apologised repeatedly and sought mercy, while also informing the court that he was experiencing physical pain.
ALSO READ: Bar vs Bench: CJI Surya Kant Seeks Report on Viral Andhra HC Courtroom Clash
The BCI said the judge allegedly remained “unmoved,” despite the advocate’s statements and request for leniency.
The BCI further stated that Justice Rao allegedly told the lawyer, “Now you will learn,” while also mocking his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra communicated the concern to the Chief Justice of India, asserting that the actions attributed to the judge appeared to lack fairness and proportionality. The council maintained that disciplinary powers available to courts should be exercised with restraint and sensitivity particularly when young advocates are involved.
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