Loading...

Legal Articles

Supreme Court Urges High Courts to Form Grievance Committees for Better Bar-Bench Relations

The Supreme Court on Monday urged all High Courts across India to constitute grievance redressal committees to strengthen relations between lawyers and judges and ensure timely resolution of disputes between the Bar and the Bench. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such institutional mechanisms would help address concerns amicably and foster a more supportive judicial environment, particularly for young lawyers entering the profession.

The direction came while hearing a matter concerning Andhra Pradesh High Court Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao’s recent courtroom outburst against a young advocate, a video of which went viral on social media last week. Taking note of the incident, the Supreme Court emphasized that judges must exhibit patience, compassion, and encouragement towards junior members of the Bar. The Court underlined that while senior lawyers play a role in instilling discipline and ethics, the judiciary also shares responsibility in nurturing lawyers and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. The Bench further noted that the strength and quality of the judiciary depend upon the continuous development of the Bar at all levels.

The apex court also cautioned the media against circulating courtroom video clips without context, observing that sensationalized and decontextualized content could hamper the administration of justice. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the responsible role played by legal journalists in reporting court proceedings. Referring to a report submitted by Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Lisa Gill, the Supreme Court noted that the controversy had already been resolved with the intervention of the High Court Bar Association and that a five-judge committee had been formed to maintain cordial Bar-Bench relations. Concluding that no further action was required, the Court said the incident appeared to have arisen from a misunderstanding during arguments over legal precedents.