“An Assault on Bar Dignity”: SCBA Passes Emergency Resolution Against Andhra HC Judge’s Custodial Order
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, May 7, 2026 – In a move that has reverberated through courtrooms and bar associations across India, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has passed an emergency resolution condemning an Andhra Pradesh High Court judge’s directive ordering the police custody of a young advocate.
The SCBA has urgently appealed to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant for immediate intervention, arguing that the order strikes at the heart of advocate immunity and judicial independence.
The incident unfolded on May 5 in Vijayawada, when High Court Judge Justice Tarlada Rajsekhar Rao directed the immediate remand of an advocate, a rising litigator practicing in the Andhra Pradesh HC, to 24-hour police custody.
“The SCBA firmly believes that the relationship between the Bench and the Bar is founded upon mutual respect, dignity, patience, and institutional balance. Advocates are officers of the Court and play an essential role in the administration of justice. While the authority and majesty of Courts must always be respected and maintained, the exercise of judicial powers must equally reflect restraint, proportionality, fairness, and compassion.” The Resolutions Reads.
The Advocate was arrested mid-hearing during a contempt proceeding linked to an allegedly “disrespectful” submission in a property dispute case.
Eyewitnesses and court transcripts reveal the judge invoked Section 345 of the CrPC (procedure in cases of contempt of court) on the spot, bypassing standard procedural safeguards like prior notice or an inquiry under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legal Fraternity’s Conscience Shaken: SCBA’s Swift Response
The SCBA, representing over 20,000 advocates, convened an extraordinary executive committee meeting late last night and unanimously adopted the resolution. “This unprecedented order remanding an advocate to police custody without due process has shaken the conscience of the legal fraternity nationwide,” stated SCBA in the resolution. “It undermines the advocate’s sacrosanct role as an officer of the court, protected under Article 22 and judicial precedents like R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000), which bar routine criminalization of courtroom advocacy.”
“The SCBA firmly believes that the relationship between the Bench and the Bar is founded upon mutual respect, dignity, patience, and institutional balance. Advocates are officers of the Court and play an essential role in the administration of justice. While the authority and majesty of Courts must always be respected and maintained, the exercise of judicial powers must equally reflect restraint, proportionality, fairness, and compassion.”
Investigative Lens: Procedural Lapses Under Scrutiny
Legal experts are dissecting the order for red flags. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, summary proceedings require a prima facie case of “scandalizing the court” or wilful disobedience thresholds not evidently met here, per available transcripts. The judge’s invocation of CrPC custody skips the mandatory 24-hour notice and hearing mandated in In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995).
As the SCBA’s plea lands on the CJI’s desk, eyes turn to whether this prompts a full-court reference or transfer to the Supreme Court. With the legal community on edge, the incident underscores a deepening fault
