An unprecedented incident unfolded at the Madhya Pradesh High Court on March 22 when a lawyer commented on the state of the judiciary during a hearing. The court took the lawyer’s comments as contempt, and referred the matter to Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait for action.

A criminal revision petition linked to an assault case in Pandhurna was being heard in a single bench of Justice Anuradha Shukla.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s lawyer PC Paliwal allegedly expressed frustration and used derogatory language.

“A drama is going on in this court for four hours. I have been sitting here watching with no conclusion in sight. The high court judges advocate for appointing new judges, but look at the situation here. Case pendency is rising, and we are being harassed. This evening, I will meet Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and inform him about this,” Mr Paliwal said.

The lawyer said he sought for the case to be transferred to another bench several times, as he did not want to argue before the current one.

Justice Shukla took serious note of the lawyer’s comments. She said his comments were against the dignity of the judiciary and amounted to contempt of court.

She said a copy of the case be sent to the Chief Justice for further action and consequently, postponed the hearing.

“She was passing time, talking about unrelated matters. I have been sitting here since 4.30 pm, watching this drama for four hours. In the past, we used to get bail even for sentences of four-five years. But now their approach is to listen for an hour, dismiss cases, and let pendency increase,” Mr Paliwal told NDTV, defending his comments.

“If they want to address pendency, they should act efficiently. These six cases could have been resolved in two minutes,” he added. “The same happens in Delhi; they are taking money – it’s clear. Try filing a contempt case against me. I even told the Chief Justice that I am quitting practice. I did not fight this battle for myself; my office has cases pending since 1990-95,” he said.

This row sparked a debate on judicial decorum, legal ethics, and courtroom behaviour. The legal fraternity now awaits Chief Justice Kait’s decision on the matter.