Supreme Court Witnesses Rare Standoff Between Bench and Bar Over Contempt Warning

New Delhi: A dramatic confrontation unfolded in the Supreme Court on Tuesday as tensions flared between the bench and senior representatives of the bar after a two-judge panel warned an advocate-on-record (AOR) of contempt proceedings for allegedly abusing the legal process.

The dispute arose before a bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, which took strong exception to what it viewed as an attempt to circumvent judicial orders. Bar leaders, however, protested against what they termed a "preconceived" and "unacceptable" order, while the bench countered that lawyers practicing in district and high courts demonstrated greater responsibility than those appearing in the Supreme Court.

The case in question involved a petitioner who, despite an earlier Supreme Court directive mandating surrender within two weeks, filed a fresh petition seeking identical relief. Expressing disapproval, the bench observed, "This is the highest court of the land, and you cannot take the court for a ride... It is unacceptable to us how proceedings in the Supreme Court are taken so casually. Lawyers in district and high courts are far more responsible than those practicing here."

The petitioner, convicted in 2011 and sentenced to three years in prison, had exhausted all appellate remedies in the high court before approaching the Supreme Court. In April 2024, the court directed him to surrender. Instead of complying, he filed another special leave petition (SLP) through the same AOR, drawing the court’s ire.

As the bench dictated its initial order—stating that the petitioner and his lawyers' actions bordered on criminal contempt, amounted to "misusing the process of law," and "interfering with the administration of justice"—senior bar leaders intervened, sparking an unusual standoff between the judiciary and the legal fraternity.

Bar Leaders Challenge Contempt Warning

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Vice-President Rachana Srivastava urged the bench to grant the lawyer an opportunity to explain before issuing a written order. "Give him an opportunity to explain. Allow him to submit a written response... hold this order for the time being," she requested.

SCBA Secretary Advocate Vikrant Yadav took a more forceful approach, calling the order "preconceived." He argued, "The bench is already reading out a pre-written order. It looks like a preconceived order. This is unacceptable to us."

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) President Advocate Vipin Nair questioned the necessity of issuing a detailed order before seeking clarification. "This court could have simply asked for an explanation instead of dictating such an extensive order. We have known him for three decades, and he has a reputable standing," Nair contended.

Justice Trivedi, visibly displeased, responded, "It is only in the highest court of this country where, after the bench dictates an order, there is opposition. I fail to understand how you can defend something like this."

Personal Circumstances Come to Light

Amid the heated exchanges, senior advocate S. Nagamuthu provided context for the AOR's absence at the last hearing on March 28. He informed the court that the lawyer was in his village in Tamil Nadu, tending to personal crises, including his wife’s surgeries and his mother’s attempted suicide. This explanation prompted the bench to reconsider its position.

Following continued interventions by bar leaders, the bench agreed to modify its order and seek explanations before proceeding further. The final ruling recorded that, pursuant to the intervention of SCBA and SCAORA representatives, the petitioner and his lawyers would be given an opportunity to clarify under what circumstances the second petition was filed. The court also instructed the AOR to provide travel records to establish his bona fides, scheduling the next hearing for the following week.

Judiciary and Bar: A Shared Responsibility

Before concluding proceedings, the bench underscored the importance of legal practitioners in upholding the judiciary’s strength and credibility. "You want the judiciary to be strong, but it has to start from the bar. Lawyers have to be more responsible," Justice Trivedi remarked.

The incident highlights the ongoing tensions between the bench and the bar over issues of legal ethics, procedural integrity, and the delicate balance of judicial authority and professional advocacy. The upcoming hearing is expected to further define the contours of accountability within the apex court’s corridors.