Advocates accuse judge of humiliating them, seek her transfer from Telangana HC

Hyderabad: The High Court Advocates Association (HCAA) has appealed to the Chief Justice of India to transfer Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya to another court, alleging that her behaviour towards advocates during hearings has been demeaning and intolerant.

The advocates passed a resolution at the High Court on Thursday, June 26, urging the chief justice of Telangana not to allow subjects to her roster till her transfer. The advocates also planned to boycott the 5th court, which she attends starting Monday, June 30, if their grievance wasn’t addressed by then.

Speaking at the meeting held in High Court, around 25-30 advocates gave their individual accounts of how they were mistreated by the judge during the hearings.

The allegation against her is that she often indulges in insulting the advocates during the hearings, stating that they haven’t come prepared and adjourning the matters for weeks.

The advocates also alleged that she has been dismissing petitions, including habeas corpus petitions, arbitrarily, by imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 to lakh on the counsels.

For instance, an advocate told Siasat.com that there was a matter concerning the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC), which has been pending since 2017, as the case was admitted but wasn’t listed. She was known to have arbitrarily imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the counsel.

“Listing a case for hearing is the duty of the registry, not the advocate,” an advocate said, on condition of anonymity.

According to an advocate, Bhattacharya has started a new trend wherein if an advocate asks for an adjournment, and if she feels that the advocate has not come prepared, she would let the legal aid counsels argue the case, stating that the advocate was not ready to argue-even though it is not a legal service matter.

“In one case represented by advocate Prabhakar, without the notice of the client and the party, she let the legal aid counsel argue on behalf of the client. However, when a petition was filed by the client stating that the client wanted to continue with Prabhakar as his legal counsel, she not only dismissed the case, but also imposed Rs 25,000 cost on the counsel,” an advocate told Siasat.com.

Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya has also been accused of entertaining mostly corporate advocates, whose English is fluent.

“The advocates who come from the rural areas are not so fluent. She tells them that she can’t understand anything they say. But she entertains only Reddys, Brahmins, Raos, and advocates dealing with commercial matters,” he alleged.

He notes that the issue with her wasn’t about her judgment on the merits of the case, but that she humiliates the advocates before their clients, and also puts her remarks in the docket orders on the advocates, which the clients can access.

Moreover, the advocates are concerned because the court proceedings are being live-streamed, and such humiliation will result in the advocates losing their clients to those advocates who appear to be entertaining.

Even in September 2024, there were complaints raised against her by the advocates, who had passed a resolution against her, when Alok Aradhe was the Chief Justice.

“She had said that she wouldn’t do the same, but within a week, she went back to her ways. It’s like being ragged in a college,” said one of the advocates, who also said that during his informal conversations with Bhattacharya’s staff, they too had complained about her alleged dictatorial attitude.

A section of advocates feels that Moushmi Bhattacharya is being targeted because she is a female justice.

Another advocate told Siasat.com that Bhattacharya didn’t seem to be so much of a person who didn’t care about the clients, though she is known to be adamant and intolerant towards advocates.

The advocates told Siasat.com that she would look at the stature of the advocate, but not pass casteist or frivolous comments against advocates.

“She is not someone who could be targeted. Some judges give irrational judgments. This kind of mobilisation should have been done to call out such judges,” the advocate opined.