MARIA NEDUMPARA
Advocate
101, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Rd, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001
Mob: +91 9447165650 E-mail: marianedumpara@gmail.com

                                               16.10.2025

To,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. R. Gavai,
The Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi-110001

Also to,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
The Chief Justice,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Mumbai – 400032

May it please your Lordship,

Sub: Grievance concerning mistreatment at the hands of a judge of the Bombay High Court.

1. I address this letter with a great amount of hesitation, for I fear that being a junior lawyer, merely having a grievance could in itself be considered impertinence. But I also realize that it perhaps falls precisely on the juniors, on the younger members who enter the profession to voice certain injustices and practices that have been normalized for so long that it perhaps no longer evokes discomfort or outrage. Like the child who yelled that ‘the emperor has no clothes’, it is the younger generation that can point out and question what is taught to be the norm, out of undampened conviction and even naivety. It is in that faith that I address this letter, believing fully that any misstep on my part would be looked at with indulgence, rather than as insolence. I wish to bring to your Lordship’s notice a recent incident that took place in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. On 29th September a case concerning an MSME borrower was listed before a division bench headed by his Lordship Hon’ble Justice Shyam Suman. My senior, Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, was undergoing treatment in Cochin and was therefore appearing online. A few other associates and I were physically present to assist the court. The Hon’ble judge, however, refused to unmute my senior. In fact, as soon as my senior sought to address the Court, the court specifically directed that he be muted. The senior associate and I requested several times that the Court may kindly unmute the counsel, but we were told by the Hon’ble judge that he will not entertain VC appearance. This denial is in itself would be a matter of grave concern, but as it happens, that unfortunately, is the least of my grievance.
3. Without unmuting the counsel who was appearing online, the Hon’ble Judge went on to make wholly unwarranted comments about the conduct of the case, stating that “the counsel has offended the court”. Not only were these comments repeatedly made, it was made with the air that the counsel had done something truly unspeakable and outrageous, while refusing to state what he had done. These were blanket statements with no basis whatsoever. Nothing had transpired even in the previous hearings that corresponded to these statements. One can only gather that it was made deliberately to give the impression that there was wrongdoing on the part of the counsel. All while the counsel himself is kept on mute, unable to defend himself or respond.
4. I could see on the screen that my senior was responding unaware that he was not audible. My fellow associates and I were at a loss as to why the court was making such remarks. I therefore spoke on behalf of my senior, seeking pardon and asking how the counsel had offended this court, attempting to tell the Court that the counsel has done nothing at all. My intention being to tender an apology for any miscommunication. The Hon’ble Judge thundered that it is not answerable to me/that I will not question the court. I responded saying that the court may unmute my senior allowing him to respond to what is being said by the court or that “the court may not pass such comments”. To this day, I do not know of a humbler – meeker – way of asking someone who is accusing me of something what they are accusing me of, and I pray no one ever has to. My father was being spoken of in open court while he was muted and unable to speak for himself. The very least that I can do in the capacity of his junior or his daughter, is speak for him. As perturbed as I was, my submission was respectful. I am sure the same courts that convicted a lawyer for contempt of court for having “taken” the father’s name in the son’s courtroom, would appreciate the sentiment of a daughter.
5. The Hon’ble Judge then went on to discuss the case for some time. Abruptly the Hon’ble Judge turned to me, warning me that I will not question it and threatened that he will “throw” me out. I responded that this Court has said that the counsel has offended the court, and all I have stated is that the counsel has not done anything. The Hon’ble judge was livid, repeatedly shouting at me to get out and gesturing for the security to take me out. I was taken aback, truly insulted, by the manner in which the Hon’ble Judge was speaking to me, gesturing and directing the security – men – to physically take me out. It occurred to me then that I enjoyed no dignity, whatsoever, as I stood before the court – not as a lawyer and not even as a woman. I told the court that I will leave. There is no dignity, no honor and no pleasure in appearing before a court that will resort to treating a lawyer this way.
6. I had not raised my voice, nor was my tone sharp or my words objectionable in any way. I did not create a commotion or disturbance. I was appearing before a Court in the capacity of a lawyer and when specifically addressed, I responded. I did nothing that warranted being unceremoniously “thrown” out of court or being spoken to in the manner in which I was.
7. When a judge believes that he can threaten to “throw” a lawyer out of court, command them to leave at will, glare and raise his voice at the lawyer appearing before him, the equation ceases to be that of a judge and lawyer, and begins to resemble that of a ruler and his subject. A courtroom where a judge intimidates and threatens a lawyer does not embody the dignity of a court of law.
8. The Hon’ble Judge was incensed, for how did I dare to question him? But was that so daring an act? To simply ask what wrong he was accusing the lawyer of? If it is, then we have reached a point where anything short of servitude is deemed defiance. The Hon’ble Judge in believing himself at liberty to speak or act as he wishes while expecting the counsel to stand idly by, exemplified a need for compliance that is neither just nor acceptable in a court of law. In ordering me to leave the courtroom merely because I had responded when spoken to, Hon’ble Justice Shyam Suman revealed the expectation of subjugation such that no one — lawyer or otherwise — should have to abide.
9. Just recently, while I was standing in court and innocuously had my hands tightly crossed across myself, hidden by the robe, I was nudged by a lawyer and told to drop my hands to my sides or else “the judges would be angry”. It was a fairly packed courtroom, I was behind several lawyers and barely even visible to the bench. It reminded me of how parents do the same to young children when standing before a deity. Such is the level of servitude – bordering on religious devotion – that we are made to be accustomed to.
10. If a lawyer acts in a manner unbecoming of his position there are serious consequences. When a judge does the same, there are none. If lawyers are held to a certain standard of conduct, judges are to be held to an even higher one simply by virtue of the high office they adorn. Lawyers walk a tightrope while addressing the Court, a single misplaced word capable of landing us in contempt. Yet, we ourselves can be spoken to in any manner whatsoever.
11. Had this incident been an isolated one, this letter perhaps would not be of moment. But unfortunately, as anyone who has had occasion to frequent the courts in our country would know, such ill treatment is a common occurrence. Even the junior-most member of this profession we believe to be noble deserves to be treated with respect. Even the meekest, weakest litigant ought to be treated with dignity. Anything short of that brings disrepute to the institution, anything short of that is simply unacceptable.
12. When the incident of “Mahatma Gandhi burning” in the official residence of a sitting High Court judge in the national capital did not move the conscience of the institution or the people, I know that a junior lawyer being thrown out of court is not going to spark any change at all. All it will do is open myself to further hostility from certain quarters. But the alternative – remaining silent – would be far worse. For it is precisely the unwillingness to speak, to react, that has allowed mistreatment to become routine, almost to be expected. What is tolerated too long becomes tradition.
13. I am too insignificant to even suggest a solution, but having personally been subjected to unfair treatment at the hands of a court, I believe I have a right and a duty to urge that there ought to be one; to urge, most humbly, that this can no longer be the treatment meted out to lawyers. Your Lordship as the pater familias of the Indian judiciary has all the power and the means to ensure that such mistreatment does not remain the norm. I remain in the unstinted faith that this issue concerning the dignity of the bar will receive your Lordship’s kind attention and due consideration.

With most respectful regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Maria Nedumpara