Jharkhand High Court drops contempt case against lawyer who told judge not to cross limits

The Jharkhand High Court has closed the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated by it against advocate Mahesh Tiwari over an acrimonious exchange of words with Justice Rajesh Kumar last year.

A video of the hearing streamed live on YouTube had gone viral on social media. Advocate Tiwari, while addressing Justice Kumar, said on October 16, 2025,

"I can argue in my own way, not in your way in which you say. Please mind that... Don't try to humiliate any advocate, I am telling you. Sir, please don't try to humiliate any person. The country is burning... with the judiciary. These are my words. Don't try to humiliate any advocate. Aap bahut jaante hai, aap judge hogaye; hum loug nai jaante hum loug wakeel hai (you know a lot, you have become a judge; We don't know, we are lawyers). I will argue in my own way. Don't cross the limit. Please, don't cross the limit. I have already practiced for the last 40 years."

On February 16 this year, a Full Bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ananda Sen and Rajesh Shankar closed the contempt proceedings against advocate Tiwari, after the Supreme Court last month asked the High Court to sympathetically consider his unconditional apology.

The High Court, however, expressed that his utterances in the courtroom were regrettable, adding that an advocate with over 40 years of legal practice was expected to show greater restraint, if not circumspection.

"Upon due consideration of the pleas, transcript, the video clip and the law on the subject, we are inclined to accept the contemnor’s unconditional apology to this Court. However, this is not because we regard the contemnor’s conduct and utterances in the Court as not being contumacious or tending to scandalise or lower the authority of the Court," the Court said.

The Court expressed a hope and expectation that in the future, the lawyer will display restraint and not indulge in any misadventure of scandalising or lowering the authority of the institution, or otherwise interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.

"Having considered the facts, circumstances and the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we accept the contemnor’s apology and drop the contempt proceedings," the Court said.

The Court also noted Tiwari had said his comments were a spontaneous reaction and momentary response to the humiliation caused to him by personal remarks made by Justice Kumar.

Further, it observed that in his initial response before the full Bench, the lawyer had he had stated that he had no remorse or regret for his actions.

The Court said it was hurt by this statement.

"More than it hurts us, it harms the institution, which is far greater than the judges and lawyers who are but a part of it. It suggests a kind of bravado that may appeal to some galleries or quarters. But there is a thin, though well-marked line between arrogance and forthrightness that, at least, a seasoned Lawyer with over four decades of practice can afford neither to miss nor to cross," the Bench said.

It added by October 17, 2025, tempers should have cooled, and wiser counsel should have prevailed. Some grace and repentance, at least on that day, might have prevented the issue from being precipitated, the Bench said.

Taking note of the apology expressed by the advocate subsequently, the Court said,

"While we do not condone or overlook the contemnor’s conduct and utterances, our institution’s shoulders are broad enough not to be unduly affected by them. Therefore, we are satisfied that this is a matter in which, while we do not approve of the contemnor’s utterances and conduct in the Court on 16.10.2025, we must take a sympathetic and lenient view of the matter."

The Court added that judges are never eager to invoke contempt jurisdiction to shield judicial prestige or uphold their own dignity.

"This power is to be exercised sparingly, not to vindicate the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to safeguard the proper administration of justice and to prevent any obstruction, interference, or impediment thereto," it observed.

[Read Judgment]