SC Advises Judiciary To Support Young Lawyers
The court noted that the judge’s oral remarks did not translate into an executable order and that the comments were made under the impression that the young advocate had struck the files on the podium in anger.
By : DC Correspondent
Update: 2026-05-11 19:01 GMT
Vijayawada: The Supreme Court of India advised members of the judiciary at all levels to exhibit patience, compassion, and a spirit of encouragement towards all, especially young members of the Bar.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard two writ petitions registered suo motu in New Delhi on Monday over an incident in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the incident, Justice T. Rajasekhar Rao had allegedly threatened a young advocate with 24-hour police custody for his indolent behaviour on May 4.
The apex court observed that no directions were necessary in relation to the incident, as the issue had been amicably settled at the High Court level with the involvement of the Chief Justice and the Bar Association.
The court noted that the judge’s oral remarks did not translate into an executable order and that the comments were made under the impression that the young advocate had struck the files on the podium in anger. However, the advocate claimed that the files had accidentally slipped from his hands.
Noting that the issue had been resolved and that the advocate had no complaint, the apex court chose not to pursue the matter further. However, it made certain pertinent observations on the need for judges to exercise patience and to be encouraging towards young advocates.
The court also observed that it would be appropriate for High Courts to constitute grievance redressal committees involving members of Bar Councils and Bar Associations. It noted that such mechanisms would help ensure that issues between the Bar and the Bench are resolved amicably, effectively, and in a timely manner.
The apex court observed that no directions were necessary in relation to the incident, as the issue had been amicably settled at the High Court level with the involvement of the Chief Justice and the Bar Association.
The court noted that the judge’s oral remarks did not translate into an executable order and that the comments were made under the impression that the young advocate had struck the files on the podium in anger. However, the advocate claimed that the files had accidentally slipped from his hands.
Noting that the issue had been resolved and that the advocate had no complaint, the apex court chose not to pursue the matter further. However, it made certain pertinent observations on the need for judges to exercise patience and to be encouraging towards young advocates.
The court also observed that it would be appropriate for High Courts to constitute grievance redressal committees involving members of Bar Councils and Bar Associations. It noted that such mechanisms would help ensure that issues between the Bar and the Bench are resolved amicably, effectively, and in a timely manner.