A dramatic courtroom exchange at the Andhra Pradesh High Court has gone viral on social media after a judge was seen threatening to send a lawyer into police custody during a hearing, while the visibly distressed advocate repeatedly folded his hands and pleaded for mercy. The incident, which unfolded in open court, has triggered a widespread debate online regarding judicial conduct, courtroom decorum, proportionality of judicial action, and the treatment of advocates within the legal system.
The incident reportedly took place on Monday before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao during the hearing of a petition challenging a Look-Out Circular (LOC) and the impounding of a litigant’s passport. According to reports, tensions escalated when the court indicated that it might adjourn the matter in order to retrieve and examine an earlier order passed in a similar case. During the exchange that followed, tempers allegedly rose between the bench and the advocate representing the petitioner.
In the now widely circulated video clip, the judge can be heard questioning the conduct and attitude of the lawyer during the proceedings. Justice Rao reportedly asked the advocate whether he believed himself to be a “great senior advocate” and remarked that the court had not even decided to dismiss the writ petition. The judge was also heard directing that police personnel be called and telling the lawyer that he could challenge the matter in appeal if dissatisfied.
The advocate, who appeared visibly distressed in the courtroom, repeatedly apologised before the bench and claimed that he was in pain. Folding his hands, the lawyer pleaded with the judge and reportedly said, “Sorry. I am begging for your grace, your lordship.” Despite the repeated apologies and requests for leniency, the judge remarked that the counsel had behaved “indolently” during the hearing and even asked other lawyers present in the courtroom to identify themselves as witnesses to the alleged conduct.
In a move that shocked many observers and later sparked widespread criticism, the court directed police personnel to take the advocate into custody for 24 hours. Even after the order was passed, the lawyer continued seeking mercy from the court. However, the judge reportedly instructed him not to speak further and suggested that if he was aggrieved, he could stage a protest with the Bar Association.
The exact trigger behind the sharp confrontation and the judge’s reaction remains unclear from the publicly available footage. However, the dramatic exchange quickly spread across social media platforms, where legal professionals, activists, and ordinary users began debating whether the reaction was excessive and whether the dignity of the legal profession had been compromised during the incident.
According to reports published by Bar and Bench, the custody order was later withdrawn following intervention by the High Court Bar Association. Sources indicated that discussions took place after the hearing, leading to the cancellation of the direction ordering police custody. The matter has now reportedly been adjourned and is expected to be listed again after the court’s summer vacation.
The incident has also drawn a strong response from the Bar Council of India. According to reports by LiveLaw, the BCI wrote to Chief Justice Surya Kant seeking urgent intervention regarding the episode. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra reportedly described the incident as “deeply disturbing” and raised concerns about judicial temperament, fairness, and proportionality in dealing with advocates during court proceedings.
In its communication to the Chief Justice of India, the BCI acknowledged that courts possess the authority to discipline advocates when necessary. However, it argued that directing a lawyer to police custody over what appeared to be a procedural or courtroom disagreement was “prima facie grossly inappropriate.” The Bar Council further warned that such incidents could create a chilling effect on younger lawyers and potentially damage the delicate balance of mutual respect that traditionally exists between the bench and the Bar.
The BCI letter also stated that the dignity of the judiciary is not strengthened by situations where advocates are publicly humiliated or compelled to beg for mercy in open court. It urged the judiciary to review the courtroom video recording carefully and consider appropriate administrative measures if required.
As the viral video continues circulating online, the incident has reignited a larger national discussion regarding judicial accountability, courtroom behaviour, the limits of judicial authority, and the importance of maintaining both discipline and dignity within India’s justice system.
