The Jharkhand High Court has closed suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Mahesh Tiwari. The case arose from a tense courtroom exchange with Justice Rajesh Kumar on October 16, 2025.
A video of the hearing, which the court live-streamed on YouTube, later spread widely on social media. During the exchange, Tiwari told the judge:
“I can argue in my own way, not in your way in which you say. Please mind that… Don’t try to humiliate any advocate, I am telling you. Sir, please don’t try to humiliate any person. The country is burning… with the judiciary. These are my words. Don’t try to humiliate any advocate. Aap bahut jaante hai, aap judge hogaye; hum loug nai jaante hum loug wakeel hai (you know a lot, you have become a judge; We don’t know, we are lawyers). I will argue in my own way. Don’t cross the limit. Please, don’t cross the limit. I have already practiced for the last 40 years.”
Full Bench Accepts Unconditional Apology
On February 16, 2026, a Full Bench accepted Tiwari’s unconditional apology and dropped the proceedings. The Bench comprised Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ananda Sen, and Rajesh Shankar.
The Bench took note of the Supreme Court’s direction last month. The top court had asked the High Court to consider the apology sympathetically.
Court Calls Remarks Regrettable, Expects Restraint
The High Court described the courtroom remarks as regrettable. It said a lawyer with over 40 years of practice should show restraint and careful judgment.
The Bench clarified that it accepted the apology despite the nature of the conduct. It observed:
“Upon due consideration of the pleas, transcript, the video clip and the law on the subject, we are inclined to accept the contemnor’s unconditional apology to this Court. However, this is not because we regard the contemnor’s conduct and utterances in the Court as not being contumacious or tending to scandalise or lower the authority of the Court,”
The Court said it expected the advocate to act with restraint in the future. It also warned against any conduct that could lower the authority of the institution or hinder the administration of justice.
Bench Notes His Stand, Then the Shift
Tiwari told the court that his remarks came in the heat of the moment. He said he reacted to what he viewed as humiliating personal remarks.
However, the Court also recalled his initial response before the Full Bench. At that stage, he had said he felt no remorse or regret. The Bench said that statement hurt the institution more than any individual.
It noted:
“More than it hurts us, it harms the institution, which is far greater than the judges and lawyers who are but a part of it. It suggests a kind of bravado that may appeal to some galleries or quarters. But there is a thin, though well-marked line between arrogance and forthrightness that, at least, a seasoned Lawyer with over four decades of practice can afford neither to miss nor to cross,”
The Court added that by October 17, 2025, tempers should have cooled. It said wiser counsel should have prevailed. A prompt expression of regret, it observed, could have prevented escalation.
“Institution’s Shoulders Are Broad Enough”
The Bench said it did not condone the conduct. Still, it chose a sympathetic and lenient approach because the advocate later offered an unconditional apology.
It observed:
“While we do not condone or overlook the contemnor’s conduct and utterances, our institution’s shoulders are broad enough not to be unduly affected by them. Therefore, we are satisfied that this is a matter in which, while we do not approve of the contemnor’s utterances and conduct in the Court on 16.10.2025, we must take a sympathetic and lenient view of the matter.”
Contempt Power Must Protect Justice, Not Ego
The Full Bench reiterated that judges do not use contempt powers to protect personal dignity. The Court stressed that contempt jurisdiction serves a narrow purpose.
It said:
“This power is to be exercised sparingly, not to vindicate the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to safeguard the proper administration of justice and to prevent any obstruction, interference, or impediment thereto,”
In closing, the Bench accepted the apology and dropped the contempt proceedings:
“Having considered the facts, circumstances and the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we accept the contemnor’s apology and drop the contempt proceedings,”
