Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Orders 24-Hour Custody of Junior Advocate

In a significant development raising questions about judicial temperament and Bar-Bench relations, the Bar Council of India has sought administrative action against Justice Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court after he reportedly ordered a young advocate to be sent to judicial custody for 24 hours during court proceedings on May 5.

The matter has now reached the office of Justice Surya Kant, with the BCI demanding immediate institutional intervention.

What Happened in Court?

According to reports, Justice Rao directed police officials to take a young advocate into judicial custody after expressing displeasure over the manner in which certain documents relating to a lookout circular and impounding of a litigant’s passport were placed on record before the court.

The advocate allegedly behaved in an “objectionable manner” during the proceedings. However, videos circulating in legal circles reportedly show the advocate repeatedly apologising before the court and clarifying that there was no intention to disrespect the Bench.

Following intervention by the High Court Advocates’ Association, the custody order was later withdrawn, and the matter was posted for hearing after the summer vacation.

BCI’s Strong Objection

In a strongly-worded letter addressed to the CJI, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra urged the judiciary to take immediate corrective measures.

The BCI has reportedly sought:

• Withdrawal of judicial work from Justice Rao pending review;
• His transfer to a distant High Court;
• Judicial training on:
  • court management,
  • judicial temperament,
  • Bar-Bench relations, and
  • proportional exercise of contempt powers.

The Council argued that the Judge’s conduct raises “grave questions” regarding fairness, proportionality, and dignity towards members of the legal profession.

“A Young Lawyer Is Not an Adversary”

In his letter, Mishra emphasised that while advocates may be corrected or proceeded against legally where necessary, public humiliation and custodial directions against a young lawyer appear excessive.

“A young lawyer standing before the court is not an adversary of the Judge. He is an officer of the court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction but without humiliation,” the letter stated.

The BCI also expressed concern that the advocate was allegedly rebuked in open court and told to either file an appeal or “sit for a dharna at Bar Council,” in the presence of fellow advocates and government counsel.

Debate on Judicial Temperament and Contempt Powers

The incident has sparked wider discussions within legal circles on the scope of judicial authority and the manner in which courts exercise contempt-related powers inside courtrooms.

Legal observers point out that while courts possess inherent powers to maintain decorum and authority, such powers are expected to be exercised with restraint, especially when dealing with young members of the Bar.

The BCI noted that judicial dignity is strengthened not through fear, but through fairness, patience, and constitutional humility.

Demand for Institutional Review

The Bar Council has requested the Chief Justice of India to call for:

• Video recordings of the proceedings,
• The judicial order passed,
• And surrounding circumstances leading to the custody direction.

The controversy is likely to intensify ongoing debates about balancing judicial discipline with professional respect and preserving healthy Bar-Bench relations within constitutional courts.

As of now, there has been no official response from the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the BCI’s allegations or demands.

📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more updates