Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Show Cause Notice To Advocate For Appearing Despite Ongoing Criminal Contempt Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a show cause notice to an advocate for appearing in a bail matter while his conviction for criminal contempt was still subsisting, observing that the tone and tenor in which he was arguing reflected a deliberate attempt to intimidate and influence the court.

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that the lawyer's submissions exhibited a lack of restraint, decorum, and adherence to the ethical standards expected of an officer of the Court.

"The tone, tenor, and manner of submissions reflected a deliberate attempt to intimidate and influence the Court, rather than to responsibly argue the merits of the case. His submissions exhibited a lack of restraint, decorum, and adherence to the ethical standards expected of an officer of the Court. The Court notes that advocacy carries with it not merely the right to argue zealously on behalf of a client, but also a concomitant duty to uphold the dignity, authority, and decorum of the judicial process. In this instance, the conduct of Shri Bhadauria fell short of these responsibilities," the Court said,

Thus, the bench directed,

"Accordingly, in exercise of the constitutional and inherent powers vested in this Court to ensure adherence to its Rules and to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of judicial proceedings, the Office is directed to issue a show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria, calling upon him to explain under what authority he was/is appearing, acting, and pleading before this Court in the absence of compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012".

The lawyer was appearing as counsel for an accused seeking bail in relation to an FIR registered for assaulting a public servant (Section 132), hurting a public servant (Section 121(1)), kidnapping (Section 140), rash driving (Section 281) and cruelty by husband/ relatives (Section 125A) of BNS.

Per the prosecution, two constables, Bakendra Malaya and Ravi Kumar Vimal, were on duty on February 4, in front of DB Mall when a white Honda Amaze car was being driven rashly. On instructions, Constables Digambar Sharma and Ravi Vimal signalled the vehicle to stop and placed a stopper.

However, to avoid a challan, the driver accelerated the vehicle and hit Vimal. They further dragged him on the bonnet of their car. As a result, the individual sustained multiple injuries to his head and leg.

The counsel for the applicant argued that his client was merely a passenger in the vehicle and that the allegations of rash and negligent driving were attributable to the co-accused.

The Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the case involved grave offences involving allegations of direct assault on a police constable who was discharging his official duties during a sensitive security arrangement.

The court noted that the allegations against the applicant were serious in nature and involved allegations of assault on a police constable who was discharging his official duties. The court thus held that the action prima facie indicated a concerted act on the part of the vehicle occupants to obstruct and deter a public servant from performing official duty.

As the Court dismissed the bail plea, it noted that the applicant's counsel, was held guilty of contempt by an order of April 26, 2024, which was also affirmed by the Supreme Court, which merely reduced the quantum of costs. Therefore, the bench held that the conviction for criminal contempt remained subsisting.

The court further emphasised that under Rule 16 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012, mandates that no advocate who has been found guilty of criminal contempt shall appear, act, or plead before this Court or any subordinate Court in the District where the contempt was committed unless the contempt has been duly purged.

The court noted that despite this explicit mandate, the lawyer in question was appearing and arguing the cases. The court also noted that the advocate attempted to introduce personal vindication, challege settle findings and focus on extraneous matters rather than the merits of the application.

Therefore, the court directed that a show cause notice be issued to the lawyer to explain under what authority he was/is appearing, acting, and pleading before this Court in the absence of compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012.

"The Office is further directed to issue notice to the State Bar Council to inform this Court of the steps taken, if any, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.04.2024, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and if not taken, action would be taken as may be warranted in accordance with law," the judge directed.

The matter was listed for further hearing on April 6, 2026.

Case Title: Munendra Singh v State of MP [MCRC-7860-2026]

For Applicant: Advocate Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria

For State: Public Prosecutor Mohit Shivhare

Click here to read/download the Order