'Heated Courtroom Exchanges Not Contempt': Why Allahabad HC Dismissed Lawyer's Plea Against Sitting Judge

A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Devendra Singh-I categorically observed that a 'wrong order' or 'heated exchanges' between a lawyer and a judge during proceedings cannot form the basis for initiating criminal contempt against a Judge.

Briefly put, the applicant-Advocate Arun Mishra contended that in November 2025, he asked the judge to recuse himself from hearing a particular case because counsel had no confidence in the concerned Judge.

The applicant claimed that, in response to his prayer, the judge retaliated by humiliating him and making remarks that would amount to contempt of court.

However, when the division bench perused the order in question (passed on November 26, 2025), it noted that the judge had asked the counsel-applicant to argue the case, but he was adamant about not proceeding with the argument and insisted that the Court release the matter.

Consequently, the single judge had deprecated the conduct of the counsel-applicant.

The Court had also directed the Registrar General to follow the appropriate procedure for the removal of his name from the High Court roll and referred the matter to the Bar Council for appropriate action.

On the contempt allegations, the Division Bench observed that the affidavit filed in support of the petition did not specify the specific words or statements allegedly used by the judge.

The court noted that even the November 26 order did not contain any such statements as claimed by the applicant.

The bench said that even if it is assumed that some heated exchanges had taken place between the concerned Court and the counsel, the same would not amount to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

"Heated exchanges between the counsel and the Court do not amount to contempt of court. Such heated exchanges do not amount to either scandalizing the Court or lowering the authority of any court and also do not prejudice or interfere or obstruct the administration of justice", the bench observed.

The Court further clarified that a wrong order passed by a Court does not subject it to contempt proceedings but can be challenged by the party before the Court, which has the power to entertain any challenge against the order.

The bench added that in contempt proceedings, the court does not adjudicate on the validity of an order passed by another court.

Regarding the recommendations made against the advocate, the bench said that those cannot be made the subject of contempt proceedings either. The court noted that the applicant has remedies elsewhere which he can exercise regarding those actions.

Thus, holding the contempt application as not maintainable, the High Court dismissed the plea.

Immediately after the judgment was dictated in open court, the Court also rejected the applicant's prayer for a certificate under Article 134(A) read with Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

"We do not find that any substantial question of law of general importance or regarding interpretation of Constitution is involved in the matter and in our considered opinion, the issue involved in the case is not required to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer of the applicant for leave to appeal is dismissed and the certificate is denied", the Court said.