Ranchi, Oct 17 The Jharkhand High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of a case of criminal contempt against advocate Mahesh Tiwari following a heated exchange with a judge during livestreaming of court proceedings.
The incident occurred on Thursday during the hearing of a case related to a domestic electricity connection and billing dispute, which was being livestreamed on YouTube. The video of the exchange quickly went viral on social media, drawing widespread attention.
During the hearing, advocate Tiwari, representing petitioner Pushpa Kumari, argued that his client was being asked to pay over Rs 1.30 lakh in dues and fines. He requested the court to allow restoration of the electricity connection upon depositing Rs 10,000-15,000 in view of the upcoming Diwali festival.
Justice Rajesh Kumar, who was hearing the matter, declined the plea. remarking: "We are not here to dispense justice on the basis of mercy. This is a court of law, not a court of justice."
This led to a sharp exchange, with Tiwari reportedly saying: "I will argue my way, not yours. Please pay attention… Don’t try to insult any lawyer. The country is burning with anger over the judiciary. I have been practising in this court for 40 years."
After the bench ordered that the connection could be restored if Rs 50,000 was deposited, Tiwari objected, saying that even Rs 15,000 was excessive as the monthly bill was under Rs 200.
Justice Kumar responded: "Tiwari ji, you stand up and say that the petitioner is a widow, she is poor… this is not pleading. I am not sitting with an empty skull. There is something in my skull."
Even after the hearing concluded, Tiwari allegedly made further remarks targeting the judge, prompting other advocates to intervene.
On Friday, a full bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Ananda Sen, and Justice Rajesh Shankar took suo motu cognisance of the incident.
The court registered a case titled “Court on its own motion vs Mahesh Tiwari” and directed that the matter be heard on November 11.
The High Court observed that the remarks made during a live hearing amounted to criminal contempt, as they appeared to lower the authority of the court and interfere with the administration of justice.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor