The Bar Council of India (BCI) has appealed to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to take administrative action against Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao for ordering a judicial custody of a young advocate for 24 hours on May 5. 

Justice Rao reportedly ordered that the advocate be taken into custody by the police for behaving in an objectionable manner in placing material related to a lookout notice against a litigant and impounding his passport, on record. 

However, the Judge cancelled the order following an intervention by the HC Advocates’ Association and posted the matter for further hearing after the summer vacation.

In a letter to the CJI, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra sought appropriate action against Justice Rao, including withdrawal of judicial work from him pending review, immediate transfer to a far-off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training or orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt / judicial authority.

He stated that Justice Rao could be seen in a video ordering that the advocate be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours, and the latter repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy, while insisting that he had not intended any disrespect. In spite of this, the Judge directed the Registrar, Judicial / Police officials to take the advocate into custody.

Mr. Mishra observed that the advocate was rebuked in the open court and told to file an appeal and/or sit for a dharna at Bar Council, in the presence of other advocates, including a government counsel, whom he called witnesses to the advocate’s conduct. 

He expressed concern that the course of action taken by the Judge raised grave questions of judicial temperament, proportionality, fairness, and dignity of the Bar.

“An advocate, particularly a young member of the profession, may be corrected, cautioned, or even proceeded against in accordance with law where the facts justify. But, sending a young advocate to judicial custody in such a manner appears, prima facie, to be grossly inappropriate and deeply damaging to the confidence of the Bar,” Mr. Mishra said.

“A young lawyer standing before the court is not an adversary of the Judge. He is an officer of the court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction but without humiliation,” he said.  

He pointed out that the dignity of the court was not enhanced when a lawyer was made to beg for grace and was still sent to custody for a procedural lapse. 

“The CJI must take immediate institutional cognisance of the matter and call for video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances,” Mr. Mishra stated, adding that Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility.