Prayagraj, May 15 The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wrong order or any heated exchanges between a lawyer and a judge during court proceedings cannot form the basis for initiating criminal contempt against the judge.
Dismissing the contempt application filed by practising advocate Arun Mishra, a division bench comprising justices Salil Kumar Rai and Devendra Singh observed, "Heated exchanges between the counsel and the court do not amount to contempt of court. Such heated exchanges do not amount to either scandalizing the court or lowering the authority of any court and also do not prejudice or interfere or obstruct the administration of justice."
In his application, Mishra had contended that in November 2025, he asked the single judge to recuse himself from hearing a particular case because the counsel had no confidence in that judge.
The applicant claimed that in response to his request, the judge retaliated by humiliating him and making remarks that would amount to contempt of court.
However, when the division bench perused the order in question passed on November 26, 2025, it noted that the judge had asked the counsel applicant to argue the case, but he was adamant about not proceeding with the argument and insisted that the court release the matter.
Consequently, the single judge had deprecated the conduct of the counsel applicant.
The single judge in the same order had also directed the registrar general of Allahabad High Court to follow the appropriate procedure for the removal of his name from the high court roll and referred the matter to the bar council of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action.
On the contempt allegations, the division bench observed that the affidavit filed in support of the petition did not specify the specific words or statements allegedly used by the single judge. The court noted that even the November 26 order did not contain any such statements as claimed by the applicant.
The division bench said that even if it is assumed that some heated exchange had taken place between the court concerned and the counsel, this would not amount to criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c) of the contempt of courts Act, 1971.
The court further clarified that a wrong order passed by a court does not subject it to contempt proceedings but can be challenged by the party before the court, which has the power to entertain any challenge against the order.
It added that in contempt proceedings, the court does not adjudicate on the validity of an order passed by another court.
Regarding the recommendations made against the advocate, the division bench said that those cannot be made the subject of contempt proceedings either. The court noted that the applicant has remedies elsewhere which he can exercise regarding those actions.
Thus, holding the contempt application as not maintainable, the division bench in its judgment dated May 11 dismissed the plea.
Immediately, after the judgement was dictated in open court, the court also rejected the applicant-advocate's prayer for a certificate under Article 134A read with Article 133 of the Constitution for leave (permission) to appeal to the Supreme Court.
