Telangana CJ:never seen Lawyer giving Notice to a HC Judge

on Friday, the Telangana High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji heard the Suo Motu contempt proceedings against Advocate Mr B. Balamukunda Rao.The facts of the case are, during the course of hearing of a writ petition by Justice P. Madhavi Devi, Advocate Mr B.  Balamukunda Rao interpreted the court time. Again by representing his case that he cited the Judgment of High Court and Judgement of Supreme Court, but she refused to go through the said judgment.B. Balamukunda Rao, Advocate, alleging that she disrespected him by her action posing unwarranted questions and directed the other counsels other than his case and insulted him in the open court.He further alleged that the said act falls under the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under Sections 11 and 12.

Moreover, Balamukunda Rao sent a notice and sought reply of the Judge within one week from receipt of the notice, otherwise he will take appropriate steps holding her ladyship personally liable for costs and consequences arising thereof. 

Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan opines that we do not know what transpired in the Court, whether a judge or lawyer, everyone must exercise some respect. Everyone must conduct proceedings in proper decorum. It cannot be a free for all in the court. CJ Bhuyan furious over the notice to the Judge by a lawyer Balamukunda Rao, prima facie will prevent you from practising in the Court. CJ further said that we will not hesitate to pass the order.Advocate General  B S Prasad informed the Court that Respondent  Balamukunda Rao did not withdraw the notice, which was issued against the Single Judge.

CJ Bhuyan said that before he became the Chief Justice here, he served in 7 to 8 High Courts of different States, he never saw that a lawyer issued notice to a Judge and to seek reply within 7 days.

CJ Ujjal Bhuyan further said that what aggravated the Court is giving notice to the Single Judge that you committed this and that, do respond or else action will be taken. The CJ bench observed that the respondent Mr Balamukunda Rao tried to justify his non acceptable conduct by contending that the Single Judge didn't consider various Judgments submitted by him. This cannot be a ground for unruly behaviour inside the Court.

The Chief Justice Bench granted some time to ponder over his conduct and thereafter, if he feels conduct was bad, may file an affidavit expressing unqualified behaviour, seeking apologies. The matter was adjourned to February 17,.2023.