Courtroom Chaos: Law Students Who Hurled Abuses at CJI Walk Free on Bail, Court Issues Stern Warning

A Delhi court has granted bail to two Lucknow University law students arrested for disrupting Supreme Court proceedings on July 10. One of them had hurled abuses at the Chief Justice of India and thrown case papers in court, while allegedly using force against a security guard. Though granting relief, the magistrate strongly criticised their conduct, calling it unacceptable and undeserving of any leniency in tone.

Read Full Report

A Delhi court has released two law students on bail nearly two weeks after they were taken into custody for creating a disturbance inside the Supreme Court during a hearing earlier this month. The order, delivered by Judicial Magistrate First Class Ravi at the Patiala House Courts, brings a temporary close to a case that has drawn sharp reactions from the legal fraternity, even as the magistrate made it clear that the students' behaviour deserved no sympathy.

The case dates back to July 10, when Prabal Pratap Singh, a third-year law student at Lucknow University, was arguing his own petition before a bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe. The plea challenged an April 2026 ruling of the Allahabad High Court. Midway through the hearing, Singh reportedly lost his composure, flinging a bundle of case papers toward the bench and hurling an abusive remark at Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. When a security guard on duty stepped in to control the situation, Singh is accused of pushing him and resisting his intervention, obstructing him from carrying out his duties. His batchmate, Chander Bhan, a second-year student, was named as a co-accused for allegedly encouraging or supporting the outburst.

Following a complaint from Supreme Court security personnel, an FIR was registered at the Tilak Marg Police Station. Both students were taken into police custody, questioned, and subsequently sent into 14 days of judicial custody on July 15. Footage of the courtroom episode spread rapidly online, drawing widespread condemnation. The Supreme Court Bar Association issued a statement describing the conduct as disrespectful and a threat to the dignity of judicial proceedings, while the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association wrote separately to the Chief Justice demanding firm action against everyone connected with the episode, including those allegedly circulating the clips online.

When the bail pleas came up for hearing, the public prosecutor opposed relief, pointing to the seriousness of the allegations. The magistrate, however, noted that the investigation was largely complete and that prolonged incarceration was not justified simply because the language used in the case was severe. Both students were ordered released on personal bonds of Rs 25,000 each, along with a surety of the same amount, and were directed to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation, attend every hearing, and refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

What stood out in the ruling was the magistrate's blunt assessment of the students' actions. The order observed that no litigant, no matter how frustrated by a case's outcome or how unrepresented by counsel, is entitled to throw papers in an open courtroom or direct abusive language at the presiding judge, let alone at the institution of the Chief Justice of India, which the magistrate described as the ultimate guardian of the very rights citizens rely on when approaching the judiciary. At the same time, the court observed that an institution as significant as the Supreme Court is not diminished by the misconduct of one angry, self-represented litigant, and suggested that subordinate courts would do well to follow the same institutional restraint that the apex court itself had shown, since the Supreme Court bench had chosen not to initiate contempt or coercive proceedings at the time of the incident.

The case has reignited debate around courtroom decorum, the rights of litigants appearing without lawyers, and the boundaries of acceptable conduct even amid genuine grievances with judicial outcomes. Both accused now await trial, with the court making clear that bail was a matter of legal principle rather than an endorsement of their behaviour.