Introduction
In an important ruling reiterating the balance between judicial authority and professional dignity of advocates, the Supreme Court of India has requested the Jharkhand High Court to sympathetically consider the unconditional apology tendered by a lawyer facing suo motu criminal contempt proceedings. The case arose from a heated exchange between the advocate and a single judge during court proceedings, a video of which later went viral on social media.
The decision, delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, reflects the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach towards contempt jurisdiction—emphasising judicial discipline while recognising human fallibility and the need for proportionality in punitive action.
Background Of The Contempt Proceedings
The controversy originated from an incident involving advocate Mahesh Tiwari, who was seen in a video clip engaging in a heated verbal exchange with a single judge of the Jharkhand High Court during live court proceedings. The clip, widely circulated on social media, prompted the Jharkhand High Court to take suo motu cognisance of the matter.
A five-judge Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ananda Sen, and Rajesh Shankar, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate, citing concerns over the dignity of the judiciary and courtroom decorum.
Aggrieved by the initiation of contempt proceedings, the advocate approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s suo motu action.
Proceedings Before The Supreme Court
At the outset of the hearing, the Chief Justice of India expressed strong reservations about the maintainability of the petition. The CJI observed that the plea appeared to be an attempt to undermine the authority of the High Court.
He remarked candidly:
“Even I have practised for several years… this man wants to go there and say—kya bigaad liya mera, Supreme Court se order le aaya.”
The CJI further observed that an advocate must either have the courage to contest the allegations if he believes he has done no wrong or tender an apology if he realises his mistake.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also highlighted the realities of legal practice, noting:
“At every strata of the judicial hierarchy there are situations where creation of frictions become about professional pride.”
These observations underline the Court’s concern about maintaining professional discipline without encouraging ego-driven confrontations within the judicial system.
Advocate’s Defence And Apology
Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged the Supreme Court to consider the devastating impact the contempt proceedings could have on the advocate’s career. He submitted that the petitioner never intended to disrespect the Court or obstruct judicial proceedings.
Dave argued that the issue escalated primarily due to viral circulation of selective video clips on social media, which distorted the context of the exchange. He warned that viral courtroom videos have become a growing menace, capable of triggering disproportionate institutional reactions.
Importantly, Dave pointed out that the single judge involved did not personally take offence, yet a five-judge Bench initiated suo motu contempt proceedings based on social media content. He emphasised that the petitioner was deeply remorseful and was willing to tender an unconditional apology.
Supreme Court’s Approach To Contempt Jurisdiction
Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court adopted a restrained and conciliatory approach. While refraining from interfering directly with the High Court’s proceedings, the Bench underscored the importance of allowing space for repentance and reform.
The Court recorded the submission that:
“The petitioner is extremely repentant of the incident and is willing to tender unconditional apology.”
Acknowledging this, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the advocate to file an affidavit of unconditional apology before the Jharkhand High Court.
Direction To Jharkhand High Court
Rather than issuing binding directions, the Supreme Court requested the Jharkhand High Court to consider the apology sympathetically and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The Court observed:
“We deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition, with liberty to the petitioner to submit an affidavit of unconditional apology before the High Court. We request the High Court to consider the apology sympathetically and pass an order accordingly.”
This approach reflects judicial comity and respect for institutional autonomy while offering a humane resolution pathway.
Legal Significance Of The Ruling
The decision is significant for several reasons:
- Reaffirmation of Judicial Authority – The Supreme Court made it clear that contempt proceedings cannot be bypassed merely by approaching the apex court.
- Scope for Apology in Contempt Cases – The ruling reiterates that a sincere and unconditional apology can be a mitigating factor in contempt jurisprudence.
- Concerns Over Viral Courtroom Videos – The case highlights the growing challenge posed by unauthorised recording and circulation of courtroom proceedings.
- Balance Between Discipline and Compassion – The Court recognised that professional lapses may occur and that the justice system must allow scope for correction rather than purely punitive responses.
Contempt Of Court And Professional Conduct
Under Indian law, contempt jurisdiction serves to protect the dignity and authority of courts, not the personal sensitivities of judges. However, the exercise of this power must be tempered with restraint, particularly when the alleged contemnor expresses genuine remorse.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that contempt powers should not be used to silence criticism or suppress dissent, but to ensure orderly administration of justice. This ruling aligns with that jurisprudence by encouraging resolution through apology rather than escalation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s request to the Jharkhand High Court to sympathetically consider the advocate’s apology underscores a mature and balanced approach to contempt law. While firmly discouraging courtroom misconduct, the Court acknowledged the importance of forgiveness, proportionality, and professional rehabilitation.
As incidents of courtroom videos going viral increase, this judgment serves as a timely reminder that disciplinary mechanisms must respond with both firmness and fairness. The final outcome of the case before the Jharkhand High Court will further shape the evolving contours of contempt jurisprudence in India.
Also Read
PAID Internship Opportunity: Square Circle Clinic (NALSAR), Apply Now!
