After Andhra HC row, SC directs high courts to set up Bar-Bench grievance panels

THe sublime margaret court on mon urged heights courts crossways the country to consider constituting grievance redressal committees at the high court, district and taluka levels to amicably resolve tensions between the Bar and the Bench, days after a controversial courtroom exchange in the Andhra Pradesh high court involving a young lawyer triggered widespread outrage in legal circles.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the direction while closing suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of representations made by the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association over the incident involving justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.The controversy arose from proceedings on May 5 during the hearing of a petition challenging a look-out circular and impounding of a passport, where the judge rebuked a young advocate appearing in the matter. A video clip of the courtroom exchange later circulated widely on social media, showing the lawyer apologising repeatedly with folded hands while pleading: “Sorry… I am begging for your grace, your lordships.”At one stage, the judge was heard saying: “Have I decided to dismiss your writ petition?... Are you thinking you are a great senior advocate?...Call the police. You go and file appeal.”The court had also orally directed that the advocate be taken into custody for 24 hours, although the direction was not enforced after intervention by members of the high court Bar.Taking note of the episode, the apex court said that institutional mechanisms were necessary to ensure that issues arising between judges and lawyers are addressed in a timely and cordial manner.“We deem it apt to impress upon high courts to constitute grievance redressal committees which must associate members of Bar Councils and Bar Associations. Such committees be constituted at district and taluka level also. Such mechanism will ensure that issues that may arise between members of the Bar and judiciary are amicably and effectively, timely resolved,” said the bench, agreeing to a suggestion mooted by SCBA president and senior advocate Vikas Singh.The court also underlined that judges must display “patience, compassion and spirit of encouragement”, particularly towards young lawyers entering the profession.“Young law graduates emerging from a wide variety of institutions should be encouraged to join the Bar,” the bench observed, adding that the responsibility of inculcating discipline and ethics did not lie with the Bar alone but equally with the Bench.“The judiciary must remain mindful that the strength and calibre of the Bench at all levels is intrinsically dependent upon continuous nurturing and development of the Bar,” the court added.During the hearing, the CJI revealed that a report had been sought from the chief justice of the Andhra Pradesh high court after the incident came to the notice of the apex court.According to the report placed before the bench, the controversy arose from a disagreement over the applicability of a judicial precedent during the hearing. The report said the situation escalated after the judge formed an impression that the advocate had deliberately struck his file against the podium, whereas the lawyer maintained that the file had accidentally slipped from his hands.The apex court noted that the exchange circulated online was “de-contextualized” and that the oral observations were never incorporated into the judicial order.“It appears that the learned judge, in the course of proceedings, sought to draw attention of the young counsel to a decision supporting his case, whereas the young counsel insisted on placing reliance on another precedent…in the course of exchange, the case file fell to the ground -- an occurrence which was not actuated by deliberate intent. However, the judge construed the same as an act of impropriety,” the bench recorded.The court said no executable direction for custody ultimately survived and noted that the matter had already been amicably resolved at the high court level.The report further stated that HC chief justice Lisa Gill had interacted with the young advocate, who confirmed that the misunderstanding stood resolved and that no complaint had been lodged before any forum.The Andhra Pradesh high court has since constituted a five-judge committee to maintain cordial Bar-Bench relations, apart from setting up a separate grievance redressal mechanism.Closing the proceedings, the Supreme Court said the incident did not warrant any further action at its end.At the same time, the bench cautioned against circulation of clipped courtroom videos devoid of context.“We make an unequivocal observation that media has a vital role in this regard. Dissemination of de-contextualized videos can cause unwarranted prejudice. We therefore expect that media will play a proactive role with heightened sense of responsibility,” the court said, while also appreciating the role of legal journalists in reporting court proceedings responsibly.The episode had prompted strong reactions from legal bodies across the country. The SCBA had passed a resolution expressing “deep concern and shock”, warning that humiliation or intimidation of young lawyers could have a chilling effect on the independence of the Bar. The BCI, too, had written to the CJI, saying that such incidents create fear among young advocates and erode confidence in the justice system.