Chief Justice of India Surya Kant sought a report from the Andhra Pradesh High Court after a courtroom controversy; custody order against a lawyer was halted post Bar intervention during a Look Out Circular hearing.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has asked the administration of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to submit a detailed report on a controversial courtroom exchange that drew widespread criticism from lawyers. The development followed concerns raised within the legal fraternity about the way the proceedings were handled. The High Court’s direction to send an advocate to judicial custody was ultimately not carried out after intervention by the High Court Bar.
The incident took place during proceedings before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao on Monday. The hearing involved a petition challenging the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LoC) and the impounding of a passport actions that are typically linked to efforts to ensure a person does not travel outside the jurisdiction during legal proceedings.
As the matter came up, the judge indicated that the court was inclined to adjourn the case. The stated reason was to obtain a copy of an earlier order in a similar matter, suggesting that the court wanted to rely on its prior decision while dealing with the petition.
However, the hearing took a different direction following an exchange between the Bench and the petitioner’s counsel. The disagreement was not merely procedural; according to accounts circulated through a video of the proceedings, it escalated into an intense confrontation inside the courtroom.
The courtroom exchange
In the course of the interaction, Justice Rao took exception to the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel. At one point, the judge made remarks that drew sharp reaction online and among legal professionals. The judge’s words, as quoted, were:
“Have I decided to dismiss your writ petition?… Are you thinking you are a great senior advocate?…you don’t even have 10 years’ standing…Call the police. You go and file appeal.”
The advocate appeared visibly uncomfortable and responded by apologising and requesting leniency.
While addressing the Bench with folded hands, the counsel said,
“Sorry…I am begging for your grace, your lordships,”
Despite the apology, the court recorded that the counsel had behaved “indolently.” The judge also directed the police to take the advocate into custody for 24 hours. The Bench further asked other advocates present in the courtroom to identify themselves as witnesses to the conduct.
At the same time, the judge also directed the lawyer to appear before the judicial registrar. The judge added that the counsel should next stage a “dharna” along with the Bar against the order.
Although the exchange culminated in an order directing custody, the direction was not given effect. People familiar with the matter told that after members of the High Court Bar Association intervened and urged restraint, the situation de-escalated and the custody order was not enforced. The matter was then adjourned.
The controversy intensified after a video of the proceedings surfaced on social media. Several senior lawyers questioned not only the escalation itself but also the manner in which judicial restraint and courtroom decorum were handled.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, reacting on X, wrote:
“This kind of behavior is simply not on. The bar must stand up.”
Senior advocate Karuna Nundy also criticised the premise of the direction, posting:
“What on earth is this?!! Is there something we are missing, that this lawyer could actually be arrested?? The Bar is due a fuller report. To start with.”
In another post on X, Supreme Court lawyer and BJP national spokesperson Jaiveer Shergill said that:
“being a judge does not grant anyone the right or license to mistreat, humiliate or misbehave with any lawyer,”
With concerns continuing to be raised about maintaining balance and mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar, the matter has now reached the apex court. The CJI has sought a report on the circumstances that led to the incident by Wednesday evening.
The High Court’s report is expected to clarify the sequence of events, the context in which the direction was issued, and why it was ultimately not implemented while also addressing broader questions of courtroom decorum and judicial restraint.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE