Allahabad High Court Refers Advocate For Criminal Contempt Who Accused Judge Of 'Working Under Govt Pressure'

Briefly put, on February 12, 2026, during the hearing of a bail plea, Mishra, the advocate for the applicant, argued that his client had been falsely implicated in a case where the injured sustained a firearm injury to his chest.

He also contended that the Investigating Officer (IO) had failed to record the statement of the injured victim, despite the FIR being registered on January 19, 2026.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, the Court directed the AGA to file a counter affidavit along with complete medical evidence, the injury report and the statements of the injured as well as the doctor within three weeks.

The matter was ordered to be put up as fresh on March 10, 2026.

However, the Court noted in its order that soon after the dictation of the aforementioned order, the applicant's advocate (contemnor) began raising his voice in open court. The order records the advocate as having stated:

"Why are you calling for a counter affidavit in this case? You do not have the courage to seek 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."

Taking strong exception to this, Justice Rai observed that the "tone, body language and the manner" of the advocate's statements were designed to lower the authority and dignity of the Court in the eyes of the public.

The single judge noted that the proceedings of the case remained stalled for approximately ten minutes due to this “misconduct and contemptuous behaviour.”

The Court found that such actions indicated a clear intention to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings and it amounted to scandalising the Court and interfering with the administration of justice.

Thus, concluding that the matter required the initiation of formal contempt proceedings, Justice Rai directed the Registry to place the matter before Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Furthermore, the Court released the bail case from its roster. It directed that the case be listed as a fresh matter before another Bench, subject to the Chief Justice's approval.