Can a Judge Publicly Shame a Lawyer for Doing His Job?

Can a judge misbehave with an advocate inside a courtroom? Can he or she be sarcastic, condescending, or openly hostile toward a lawyer merely for representing a client? These questions are no longer academic.

On 21–22 November 2025, in a Gauhati High Court courtroom, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi reprimanded a senior advocate for daring to appear for Victor Das, a person detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for alleged public use of invectives. The judge did not stop at questioning the legal grounds of arrest or bail. He went further — he publicly shamed the lawyer for accepting the brief of a client “known” for abusive language.

Let us examine this episode calmly and systematically. When a person is arrested, the legality of that arrest is tested in a court of law. The accused has a constitutional right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. The lawyer’s duty is to place every possible legal provision, precedent before the court — not to vouch for the client’s character or politics. What, then, is the judge’s role? To listen patiently to both sides, to seek clarifications, to prevent waste of time, and to decide the matter solely on law and evidence. A judge may certainly intervene when arguments are repetitive or irrelevant. A judge may even express displeasure if submissions are frivolous. But may a judge humiliate a lawyer for representing an unpopular client? The answer, across major common-law jurisdictions, is a resounding no. The United States Code of Conduct for Judges (Canon 3A(3)) mandates that a judge “should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous” to lawyers and others.The Guide to Judicial Conduct for England & Wales warns judges against “sarcasm, rudeness or excessive interruptions”. India’s own Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997), adopted by the Supreme Court, declares: “A Judge shall not indulge in any uncalled-for behaviour” and must ensure decorum on both sides.

Yet in Guwahati, an advocate known for his measured language was dressed down not for any courtroom misconduct, but for performing his professional duty. The lawyer was not defending the client’s alleged invectives; he was arguing whether the drastic NSA could be invoked for speech, and whether bail conditions were met. That is the very essence of adversarial justice.

When judges start deciding which clients deserve representation and which do not, the rule of law is in peril. Tomorrow it may be a political activist; the day after, a whistle-blower, a journalist, or anyone the establishment dislikes.The conduct on display in that courtroom was not a mere lapse of temper. It was an assault on the independence of the Bar and, by extension, on the right of every citizen — however unpopular — to a fair hearing.

Judicial robes command respect, but they do not confer a licence for arrogance. If judges can bully advocates into dropping “undesirable” clients, who will defend the indefensible — which is precisely when defence is most needed? The Guwahati incident demands more than silent disapproval. It calls for universal condemnation and, if necessary, corrective action by the higher judicial authorities. Because the day the Bar fears the Bench more than it fears injustice, justice itself will have left the building.

Also Read: Right to Defense Under Fire? Advocate Borthakur Responds to Victor Das's Hearing Video