Allahabad High Court Rejects Contempt Plea Against Sitting Judge

By Rajesh Pandey

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by a practising advocate who sought criminal contempt proceedings against a sitting high court judge.

While rejecting the plea, the court made it clear that disagreements, sharp exchanges, or even a controversial judicial order cannot automatically become grounds for initiating contempt action against a judge.

A division bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Devendra Singh observed that tense verbal exchanges between a lawyer and a judge during court proceedings do not qualify as criminal contempt under the law.

In its order, the bench stated that heated arguments or unpleasant interactions inside a courtroom cannot be treated as acts that scandalize the judiciary or lower the authority of the court.

The judges further noted that such exchanges also do not interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice.

The contempt application had been filed by advocate Arun Mishra. In his plea, Mishra claimed that during proceedings in November 2025, he had requested a single judge to recuse himself from hearing a particular matter because he had lost confidence in the court concerned.

According to the advocate, the judge reacted negatively to the recusal request and allegedly humiliated him in open court by making remarks that, in his opinion, amounted to contemptuous conduct.

However, after examining the order dated November 26, 2025, the division bench found that the single judge had repeatedly asked the counsel to proceed with arguments in the matter.

The bench noted that the advocate remained unwilling to argue the case and continued insisting that the matter be released from the court.

The order further revealed that the single judge had criticized the conduct of the advocate for refusing to participate in the proceedings despite repeated directions from the court.

In the same order, the single judge had also instructed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to initiate the appropriate procedure for removing the advocate’s name from the high court roll.

Additionally, the matter was referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for further action deemed appropriate.

While considering the contempt allegations, the division bench observed that the affidavit submitted by the advocate did not clearly mention the exact words or remarks allegedly made by the single judge.

The court also pointed out that no such objectionable statements were recorded in the November 26 order itself.

The bench further stated that even if some unpleasant exchanges had taken place between the judge and the advocate, they still would not fall within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Clarifying the legal position, the court said that even an incorrect or legally flawed judicial order cannot become the basis for contempt proceedings.

The bench explained that such orders can only be challenged before a higher or competent court through proper legal remedies.

The judges also made it clear that contempt jurisdiction is not meant to examine the validity or correctness of orders passed by another court.

Addressing the recommendations made against the advocate, the division bench observed that those issues too could not be examined in contempt proceedings. The court said the applicant was free to pursue any other legal remedies available to him regarding those actions.

Finding the petition legally unsustainable, the high court ultimately dismissed the contempt application as not maintainable.

Soon after the judgment was pronounced in open court, the advocate also sought a certificate under Article 134A, read with Article 133 of the Constitution, to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

However, the division bench rejected that request as well.

The court held that the matter did not involve any substantial question of law of general public importance or any significant constitutional interpretation requiring consideration by the Supreme Court.

In its May 11 judgment, the bench concluded that the issues raised in the case did not warrant an appeal before the apex court and therefore denied permission to challenge the order further.