‘The country is burning’: Why Jharkhand High Court spared a veteran lawyer who told Judge ‘don’t cross the limit’

Underlining the dignity of the court, the bench said that there is a thin, though well-marked line between arrogance and forthrightness that, at least, a seasoned lawyer with over four decades of practice can afford neither to miss nor to cross.

‘Apology accepted, but…’

• We are inclined to accept the contemnor’s unconditional apology to this court.
• However, this is not because we regard the contemnor’s conduct and utterances in the court as not being contumacious or tending to scandalise or lower the authority of the court.
• The petitioner’s utterances and his conduct in the court were indeed regrettable, as was accepted by him in his interim reply and the supplementary affidavit.
• His statement that he has no remorse or regret whatsoever for anything he has done or said in court hurts us.
• More than it hurts us, it harms the institution, which is far greater than the judges and lawyers who are but a part of it.
• He cannot afford to exhibit disrespect or speak words or otherwise conduct himself to scandalise or tend to lower the authority of any court.
• It suggests a kind of “bravado” that may appeal to some galleries or quarters.
• By October 17, 2025, the “heat of the moment” or “single momentary lapse” plea was no longer a legitimate defence.
• By then, at least, tempers should have cooled, and wiser counsel should have prevailed.
• Some grace and repentance, at least on that day, from the contemnor might have prevented the issue from being precipitated.
• While we do not condone or overlook the contemnor’s conduct and utterances, our institution’s shoulders are broad enough not to be unduly affected by them.
• We are satisfied that this is a matter in which, while we do not approve of the contemnor’s utterances and conduct in the court on October 16, 2025, we must take a sympathetic and lenient view of the matter.
• As judges, we are never eager to invoke our contempt jurisdiction to shield judicial prestige or uphold our own dignity.

Case of contempt

• The proceedings originated from an incident on October 16, 2025, in court room no 24, presided over by Justice Rajesh Kumar.
• A video clip of the interaction between the advocate Mahesh Tewari and the judge went viral on social media, prompting the then Chief Justice to take suo motu cognisance of the incident.
• The court stated that while a separate case was being called, one in which Tiwari was not representing any party, he interrupted the proceedings using “intemperate language”.
• The full bench’s initial order on October 17, 2025, noted that Tiwari had tried to “browbeat, threaten, and bully” the presiding judge and scandalised the court by stating that “the country is burning with the judiciary”.
• The full bench stated that he not only used intemperate language, but also tried to browbeat, threaten and bully the judge Justice Rajesh Kumar.
• The opposite party has tried to scandalise the court by stating and persisting that “he would argue in his own way” and rather asked the judge “not to cross his limits,” while going out of all limits insofar as he alone was concerned, thereby undermining the majesty and authority of law.
• At the initial stage, the advocate reportedly stated he had no remorse or regret whatsoever for his actions.

Supreme Court intervention

• Following the initiation of the contempt case, Tewari approached the apex court.
• On January 23, the top court disposed of his plea, noting that the advocate was “extremely repentant” and willing to tender an unconditional apology.
• The Supreme Court granted him liberty to submit an unconditional apology to the high court and requested the high court to consider that apology sympathetically and pass an appropriate order.

‘Unfortunate and regretful’

• On February 5, Tewari filed a supplementary affidavit and characterised the incident as “unfortunate and regretful”.
• He stated that he has been a practising advocate of the high court for the last 40 years and “as such can never even imagine lowering the prestige and decorum of this institution and more so the contempt of this institution.”
• He clarified that his remarks were a “spontaneous reaction” and “momentary” and made in the heat of the moment under emotional distress, and he fully retracted the statement regarding the judiciary “burning” the country.