The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has voiced serious concern over a courtroom incident at the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The incident has sparked a nationwide debate within the legal community on judicial temperament, proportionality in the exercise of authority, and balance that governs relations between the Bench and the Bar.
The episode, which involved a young advocate being directed toward judicial custody during court proceedings, led to strong institutional responses from the SCBA and the Bar Council of India (BCI), and prompted administrative attention from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant.
Courtroom Scenes
The incident occurred on 5 May 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, during proceedings in which a young advocate appeared before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao. As reflected in video recordings, the matter was listed for hearing, during which the Court took exception to what was perceived as a procedural lapse and related conduct on the part of the advocate.
The video recordings indicate that the advocate was rebuked in open court, with oral observations made concerning professional conduct and courtroom discipline. The Court appears to have made remarks intended to caution the advocate, including observations relating to professional self assessment and experience.
According to the order dictated in court, the Court recorded that the counsel has behaved ‘indolently’. On that basis, the Court directed that the advocate be taken into judicial custody for a period of 24 hours. The Judge is also seen referring to the presence of other advocates in the courtroom, including government counsel, as witnesses to the exchange. During the proceedings, the advocate was admonished and orally advised to pursue available legal remedies, including appellate recourse or representation before the Bar Council.
Publicly circulating video clips show the advocate repeatedly expressed regret and was seeking pardon before the Court. Despite these expressions of contrition, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao alleged directed that the advocate be taken into judicial custody, instructing the Registrar (Judicial) and police authorities accordingly. The video footage shows police personnel entering the courtroom, contributing to the perception among sections of the legal fraternity that judicial authority had been exercised in a manner perceived as disproportionate to the conduct at issue.
Supreme Court Bar Association’s Resolution
In a Resolution dated 6 May 2026, the SCBA expressed deep concerns over the reported incident. The SCBA stated that the episode had caused serious discomfort among advocates across the country and had particularly affected young members of the legal profession.
The resolution emphasised that while the authority and majesty of courts must be respected, the exercise of judicial power should reflect restraint, proportionality, fairness, patience, and compassion. The SCBA reiterated that advocates are officers of the Court, and that the relationship between the Bench and the Bar rests on mutual respect, dignity, and institutional balance. It cautioned that actions resulting in fear or humiliation among young advocates may undermine the independence of the Bar and the effective functioning of the justice delivery system.
BCI’s Letter to CJI
Separately, the BCI addressed an urgent representation dated 6 May 2026 to the CJI Justice Surya Kant seeking institutional intervention. The BCI stated that it found nothing prima facie objectionable in the conduct of the young advocate and described the incident, if accurately reflected in the video recordings and judicial order, as deeply disturbing.
The BCI raised concerns relating to judicial temperament, proportionality, and fairness, observing that directing a young advocate to judicial custody for a procedural lapse appeared grossly inappropriate. It further noted that such incidents could have a chilling effect on young members of the Bar, discouraging confident participation in court proceedings.
The representation urged the CJI to call for the video recordings, the impugned order, and relevant records, and to consider appropriate administrative or corrective measures to preserve public confidence in the judiciary and maintain cordial Bar—Bench relations.
Take by CJI
As per reports, CJI Justice Surya Kant, sought a report from the Andhra Pradesh High Court administration regarding the courtroom exchange involving the young advocate. This step was taken even as it was reported that the direction to send the advocate to judicial custody was not ultimately enforced, following intervention by members of the Bar.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court row drew wider attention within the legal community, not only because of the custody direction, but also due to the manner in which judicial authority appeared to have been exercised, as reflected in the publicly circulated video recordings.
Also Read: Supreme Court raises concerns with Senior Advocate designation process; Refers matter to CJI
Also Read: ‘Humiliated’ Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan gives up court practice
Read more: In Conversation with Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh, President, Supreme Court Bar Association