Recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh took serious exception to remarks made by a lawyer during the hearing of a bail application, where it was suggested that accused persons represented by senior advocates were granted bail in similar matters while those represented by junior counsel were denied relief. The Court observed that such submissions prima facie questioned the fairness of judicial functioning and affected the dignity of the institution.
The case arose from an FIR registered under the Essential Commodities Act, pursuant to which the applicant, Jagdish Varkade, sought bail before the High Court. During the earlier hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that in similar matters bail had been granted to accused persons represented by senior advocates and that denial of similar relief merely because the present applicant was represented by a junior advocate would not be appropriate.
Taking note of the submission, the Court directed the counsel to place on record copies of orders passed in such allegedly similar matters. However, when the matter was taken up again, counsel Shri Sudeep Singh Saini admitted that he was neither aware of nor in possession of any such orders where bail had allegedly been granted because the accused were represented by senior advocates. He clarified that his statement was broadly based on an order passed by a Coordinate Bench in another matter.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned the basis of the statement made at the Bar and asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. In response, the counsel submitted that he never intended to cast aspersions on the Court or undermine its dignity and tendered an unconditional apology.
Justice Ramkumar Choubey observed that“The aforesaid submission, prima facie, attributes extraneous considerations to the judicial functioning of the Court and appears to be derogatory to the dignity of the High Court.”
The Court further noted that “Earlier, the statement made at Bar by Shri Saini was found to be an extraneous consideration touching upon the judicial functioning of this Court and prima facie appeared derogatory to the dignity of this Court and contemptuous in nature.”
Considering the unconditional apology tendered by the counsel, the High Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings. However, it cautioned him to remain conscious of the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to be careful and circumspect while making submissions before the Court. The bail application was directed to be listed in the following week for consideration.
Case Title: Jagdish Varkade v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: MCRC No. 14288 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramkumar Choubey
Advocate for the Applicant: Shri Sudeep Singh Saini
Advocate for the Respondent/State: Smt. Nalini Gurung
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
