Allahabad HC judge recommends contempt proceedings after lawyer accuses him of ‘working under govt pressure’

Justice Rai directed that the bail petition be put before another bench after obtaining an appropriate order from the chief justice.

The bench stated that on February 12, Mishra submitted that his client had been falsely implicated in the case and that the victim’s statement had not been recorded by the investigating officer. It further said that the additional government advocate (AGA) admitted that though the FIR had been registered on January 19, the statement of the victim, Yash Jain, had not been recorded during the investigation. As per the FIR, Jain has sustained a firearm injury on his chest, the order stated.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, the bench directed the AGA to file a counter-affidavit along with a complete medical evidence/injury report and the statement of Jain as well as the doctor within three weeks. “Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week. Put up as fresh on 10.3.2026,” the court directed after hearing the submissions from both sides.

‘Scandalous remarks challenging the authority of the court’

The bench of Justice Rai stated in the order, “Soon after the dictation of the order mentioned above, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra (contemnor), started raising his voice in open Court and stated, ‘Why are you calling for a counter-affidavit in this case? You do not have the courage to seek an explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer who till date has not recorded the statement of the injured. You (Judge) have no authority to pass any order against the Investigating Officer. It appears that you are working under the pressure of the Government.”

Justice Rai stated in the order, “The conduct of Sri Mishra clearly indicates an intention to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings. Such behaviour, prima facie, falls within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it amounts to scandalising the Court and interfering with the administration of justice. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid bail matter, Sri Mishra made scandalous remarks challenging the authority of the Court and disrupted the proceedings, as a result of which the Court proceedings remained stalled for about ten minutes on account of his misconduct and contemptuous behaviour.”

“By using scandalous and intemperate language and by shouting in open Court in a loud and aggressive manner, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra has prima facie committed acts which tend to lower the dignity of the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration for initiation of contempt proceedings against Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra. However, it is deemed appropriate to place the issue before Hon?ble the Chief Justice for taking suitable action, in accordance with law,” Justice Rai stated in the order.

The bench further stated, “Accordingly, let a separate reference be made for initiation of contempt proceedings against Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the relevant Rules of the Court. The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders in this regard.”

Justice Rai also stated, “Office is directed to put up this matter, as fresh, at the earliest, before another Bench after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”