Aakarshan Aditya,

Advocate on Record,

Supreme Court of India.

Two recent incidents have once again stirred conversations about the evolving dynamic between the Bar and the Bench.

First, the unfortunate incident involving a lawyer’s misconduct directed at the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India — an act both shameful and deeply unbecoming of the legal fraternity. The CJI’s gracious response — dismissing the incident and instructing that no charges or contempt proceedings be initiated — reflected immense maturity and institutional composure.

Soon after, reports emerged from Jharkhand High Court where a lawyer was seen in a heated verbal exchange with a judge during court proceedings. The High Court has since registered a contempt case. But unlike the first incident, this one invites more nuanced reflection. From the available video, it isn’t conclusively clear that the lawyer’s conduct crossed the line of contempt. The lawyer appears to assert that judges should not publicly humiliate lawyers or comment on their manner of arguing. He insists that what he said was part of his submission — not defiance — and even remarks that “the country is burning, the judiciary must not cross limits.”

That sentence, however dramatic, perhaps reflects something deeper: a growing tension and disquiet in the larger Bar about the tone of judicial interactions and the dignity expected on both sides.

It is worth remembering that the Bar and Bench share a delicate but sacred relationship — one that thrives only on mutual respect. The lawyer’s duty is to assist the court with humility and conviction; the judge’s duty is to hear with patience and restraint. When either side forgets this equilibrium, the justice system itself feels the tremor.

Speaking from my own observation and experience, I have noticed a subtle but recurring pattern — especially in higher courts. Young or less-known lawyers are sometimes not afforded the same patient hearing that senior counsel receive. The disparity is understandable to an extent — seniors have honed the art of brevity and persuasion — but the opportunity to develop those very skills depends on being allowed to speak, uninterrupted, even if briefly.

It is one thing for a judge to have a strong view or to test the case through questions — that is their prerogative. But when the judicial impatience becomes a constant barrage before a lawyer can even complete the opening sentence, the exchange loses both dignity and purpose. The result is not just discouragement; it is erosion of confidence in the idea of equal justice.

This is not a lament, but an appeal — for self-reflection on both sides. Judges carry the weight of impossible dockets and expectations; lawyers must argue with courtesy and substance. Yet, amidst this pressure, let us not forget that justice is as much about how it is delivered as what is delivered.

The Bar must guard its conduct with grace. The Bench must temper its authority with patience. Between the two lies the living soul of justice.

About the Author

Aakarshan is an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India (since 2018),and a practicing advocate with 15 years of experience. Aakarshan  represents clients in taxation, criminal, regulatory, civil, commercial, and constitutional matters before the Supreme Court, High Courts, and specialized tribunals.

• NB.: The author certifies that the work is original. Views expressed are personal.