Courtroom Decorum vs. Freedom of Expression: The "Don't Cross The Limit" Controversy

When a Lawyer Told a Judge "Don't Cross the Limit": The Viral Courtroom Drama That Reached the Supreme Court

You know how Indian courtrooms typically work - lots of serious back-and-forth, lawyers making their points, everyone being pretty respectful. But now and then, things heat up in a way that grabs everyone's attention—not because of the case itself, but because of how people behave inside the court.

Well, that's what went down at the Jharkhand High Court not too long ago. A heated moment between a lawyer and a judge went viral, and before long, the Supreme Court had to step in. The phrase that started it all? "Don't cross the limit."

So this whole thing started during what should've been a routine hearing before Justice Rajesh Kumar. The case was about something fairly routine—restoring electricity connection for a client who had unpaid bills. But as the argument went on, things got tense.

The judge made some observations about the way the lawyer, Advocate Mahesh Tiwari (a senior with 40 years of practice), was arguing. The judge even asked the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council to take note of the conduct.

That's when Adv Tiwari stood up, approached the bench, and said something along the lines of: "I will argue in my own way... Don't cross the limit. Please, don't cross the limit." He added comments like "The country is burning with the judiciary" and walked out after the exchange.

The hearing was being live-streamed - pretty common now - and man, did that clip take off on social media. People shared it, debated it, and soon the Jharkhand High Court itself took notice.

A five-judge bench, chaired by the then Chief Justice, launched suo motu (on its own) contempt proceedings against the lawyer. They believed that his actions and statements went too far in demeaning the court's dignity.

The Supreme Court Intervenes

The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court in early 2026. Advocate Tiwari challenged the contempt notice, and his senior counsel explained that he was truly remorseful and ready to apologize fully.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the case. They weren't impressed with the idea of using the top court just to "show" something or challenge the High Court directly. But they gave the lawyer a clear path forward: go back to the Jharkhand High Court and file an unconditional apology.

The SC direct the High Court to consider the apology and then decide accordingly. 

In simple terms, they said: Own up to it sincerely, and things might resolve without harsher consequences.

Why Courtroom Manners Matter So Much

Here's the thing about how courts work - judges and lawyers are supposed to be on the same team, basically. They need to respect each other; otherwise, the whole system falls apart.

Lawyers are supposed to fight hard for their clients, no doubt. They need to be bold, stick to their points, and not back down easily when the law is on their side. But there is huge difference between polite and being rude. 

The Supreme Court has always stood up for lawyers who argue fearlessly on points of law. But it draws a firm line when behavior turns disrespectful—because that hurts the entire justice system.

Live-Streaming: A Double-Edged Sword

These days, many court hearings are broadcast live, which is great for transparency. Anyone can watch justice being done but sometimes it also means a tiny heated moment can become viral news. 

In this case, the live-stream made ignoring the incident impossible. It reminded everyone that lawyers are officers of the court first—their main duty is to uphold the system's dignity, even while defending their clients passionately.

What an "Unconditional Apology" Really Means

Asking for an unconditional apology isn't the simple "sorry." It's a formal way of admitting the mistake and expressing genuine regret.

By insisting on this, the Supreme Court reinforced a simple but powerful idea: No one is above the law—not even experienced lawyers with decades of practice.

The Bigger Lesson for All 

This incident isn't just about one lawyer or one judge. It's a wake-up call for the entire legal community in India.

As our courts become more open and digital, the responsibility on lawyers grows. Winning an argument shouldn't come at the cost of basic respect. Real strength lies in solid legal reasoning and composure—not in raising your voice or losing your cool.

Look, the whole legal system only works if everyone acts professionally and keeps their cool. When that balance is maintained, justice feels fair and trustworthy. When it's not, even a single phrase like "Don't cross the limit" can shake things up all the way to the top.

I'm curious what you all think - is live-streaming courts a good thing or does it just make lawyers and judges more likely to showboat?