The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a significant issue concerning judicial decorum when an advocate made strong remarks about the increasing pendency of cases. The incident occurred during a hearing of a criminal appeal, prompting the court to take serious note of the comments and refer the matter to the Chief Justice.

During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant raised concerns about delays in judicial proceedings and made remarks that the court found to be contemptuous. The advocate expressed frustration over the prolonged hearings and suggested transferring the case to another bench. As a result, the court adjourned the matter without setting a future hearing date.

Read also:- MP High Court Strikes Down Second Division Criteria for High School Teachers

In the light of the statement made by counsel for the appellant, it is evident that he is making disgraceful and contemptuous remarks against this Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate that a certified copy of this order is placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his kind perusal and needful, observed Justice Anuradha Shukla in her order.

The advocate, in his remarks, criticized the functioning of the court, alleging that similar delays were occurring in various judicial forums. His statements included comparisons with incidents in Delhi and references to discussions about judicial appointments. The remarks were perceived as an attack on the integrity of the judiciary, leading to the court’s decision to escalate the matter.

Read Also:- MP High Court Quashes Recruitment Process for Violating Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act

The advocate stated that he had been observing the proceedings for four hours and described the situation as "a drama." He expressed his frustration with the High Court judges traveling to other places to recommend judicial appointments while, according to him, the situation in their own court was deteriorating. He further referenced incidents in Delhi, emphasizing the rising pendency of cases and claiming that advocates were being harassed.

In his statements, he mentioned that he intended to report the matter to the Chief Minister, Mohan Yadav, later that evening. He also highlighted that his case had been listed 20 times, and despite the difficulty in securing a hearing, he no longer wished to argue before the present bench and requested the case be transferred to another bench.

Case Title: Rajhans Bagade And Others Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, CRA No. 14383 of 2024