In Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi reminded the judiciary of its "institutional obligation" to treat young entrants with compassion and dignity, stressing that judges must act as mentors to ensure the integrity and growth of the legal profession. It observed: "We are thus of the view that the incident in question does not warrant any further action at our end. At the same time, we consider it appropriate to observe that members of the judiciary at all levels ought to exhibit patience, compassion, and a spirit of encouragement, particularly towards young entrants to the legal profession...The present juncture necessitates that young law graduates emerging from a wide variety of institutions are encouraged to join the Bar, especially at the level of trial and district courts, where they have to imbibe the foundational principles of legal practice."
The Court directed that such Grievance Redressal Committees should also be constituted at the district and taluka level with a fair representation from the members of the Bar. In such an institutionalized mechanism, it will ensure that the issues that may arise between the members of the Bar or the judiciary are amicably, effectively, and timely resolved in a congenial atmosphere.
The Court recorded: "The communication reveals that the incident originated from a disagreement between the learned judge and the young counsel regarding a judicial precedent applicable to the matter under consideration. The situation escalated when the learned judge formed an impression that the young counsel, in a state of frustration, had deliberately struck his file against the podium, whereas the young counsel kept on explaining that the file had inadvertently slipped from his hands. The report of the learned Chief Justice further revealed that the verbal exchange that ensued was recorded by an unidentified individual who then circulated it on social media."
The Court took note of a detailed report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and heard submissions from the Senior Counsel appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The controversy originated from a disagreement over a judicial precedent, during which a case file inadvertently fell from the hands of a young advocate. The Judge initially felt that the incident as a deliberate act of impropriety and made certain oral observations regarding police custody. The Bench noted that these remarks were never translated into a formal judicial order.
The order reads: "The report records that the Hon'ble Chief Justice interacted with the young counsel, who affirmed that the misunderstanding had been amicably resolved and no complaint was lodged before the Bar Council or any other forum. In fact, the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association also addressed the Chief Justice of their High Court, informing that the matter stood amicably settled with their intervention".
The Court ordered, "From the material placed before us, it appears that the learned judge, in the course of proceedings, sought to draw the attention of the young counsel to a reported decision which was supporting his case, whereas the young counsel insisted on placing reliance on another precedent which the learned judge thought was inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. It further appears that in the course of exchange, the case file of the young counsel fell to the ground, which was not attended by any deliberate intent. The learned judge, however, appears to have construed the same as an act of impropriety, leading to certain strong oral observations, which were eventually not incorporated in the judicial order; consequently, no occasion arose to issue any executable direction. The matter thus stood concluded at that stage."
Following the unprecedented rift within the legal fraternity over the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) moved to the Supreme Court seeking urgent judicial intervention to address what they describe as a "grave assault on the dignity of the legal profession" and the "erosion of judicial temperament."
On May 6, 2026, an incident had occurred in the courtroom of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao at the Andhra Pradesh High Court during a hearing regarding a Look Out Circular.
Justice Rao had orally directed that the young lawyer be taken into police custody for 24 hours. Despite the advocate apologizing with folded hands and begging for mercy, the judge remained firm in his rebuke.
Notably, the Bar Council of India wrote a letter on May 6, 2026, to the Chief Justice of India. It expressed that such actions raise grave questions about judicial temperament, fairness, and proportionality. While a judge may correct or caution an advocate, sending a young member of the profession to custody for a procedural lapse is viewed as grossly inappropriate and damaging to the Bar's confidence in the judiciary. The BCI emphasized that advocates are officers of the court who should be entitled to correction without humiliation, as the relationship between the Bench and the Bar must be founded on mutual respect and institutional grace.
Responding to the incident, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) expressed "deep concern and shock" regarding the incident and emphasized that the relationship between the Bench and the Bar must be built on mutual respect, dignity, and institutional balance. The SCBA warned that actions leading to the "fear, humiliation, or intimidation" of junior advocates could severely undermine the independence of the Bar.
The association had urged the Chief Justice of India to take institutional cognizance of the matter, review the records, and implement corrective measures to preserve public confidence and maintain cordial Bar-Bench relations.
