Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Over 300 practising advocates poured into the Telangana High Court’s Association Hall for a protest meeting on Thursday, June 26. In the past, such a meeting was either to express dissatisfaction at a judge’s transfer or to protest physical attacks on members of the bar. However, this time around the advocates’ anger was directed towards Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, the fourth senior-most judge in the Telangana HC.
The meeting, organised by the Telangana High Court Advocates Association (THCAA), was to protest against Justice Bhattacharya for “humiliating advocates and imposing heavy costs”. In an hour-long meeting, advocates from varying age groups spoke against Justice Bhattacharya’s alleged “high-handedness”. The advocates alleged that the judge often looked down on several members of the bar and humiliated them for not being well-prepared or for not speaking in proper English.
Justice Bhattacharya was appointed as a judge to the Calcutta High Court in September 2017. In February 2024, she sought a transfer citing personal reasons and was accordingly transferred by the Collegium to the Telangana High Court in March 2024.
According to the judges’ roster, Justice Bhattacharya listens to criminal appeals, habeas corpus petitions, and matters pertaining to appeals from family and commercial courts.
Lawyers told TNM that soon after taking up her post at the Telangana High Court, they noticed her humiliating treatment towards advocates. “Several senior lawyers met with her and said, ‘Madam, junior advocates find it difficult to argue before you.’ She said she would alter her behaviour, but nothing changed. She continued insulting lawyers and, to add to it, imposed costs on them randomly,” a member of the THCAA told TNM.
Advocates also told TNM that Justice Bhattacharya has criticised advocates for not speaking well and for being ill-prepared. “This is an unfair criticism as it affects the morale of junior advocates and is insensitive towards advocates who come from less privileged backgrounds,” said V Raghunath, lawyer and former president of the THCAA.
Other than allegations of humiliating treatment, many advocates also brought up a second, sidelined issue – that Justice Bhattacharya arbitrarily imposed costs on either lawyers or their clients.
This accusation raises a series of questions. What kind of costs have been imposed? Has Justice Bhattacharya broken protocol and commonly accepted practices? TNM spoke to a cross-section of advocates to understand the allegations.
From insurance claims to habeas corpus, arbitrary costs imposed
Kota Subba Rao, an insurance lawyer who has been practising in the HC for nearly five decades, was representing HDFC Insurance in a motor vehicle accident case dating back to 2015. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had ordered HDFC to pay Rs 34.32 lakh to the claimants.
HDFC appealed against the order, following which the Telangana HC in June 2015 granted an interim stay on the order on condition that HDFC deposit half the amount in six weeks. However, instead of paying before August 3, HDFC paid on September 14, 2015. Though the claimants could have gone back to the tribunal to claim the entire amount due to the delay in payment, they did not do so, and eventually the matter was settled out of court three years later.
But Subba Rao added that Justice Bhattacharya went ahead and directed HDFC to pay an additional sum for not complying with the initial stay order within time.
“My client was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh for no valid reason. I haven’t seen any judge behave like this in my 49 years of practice,” Subba Rao told TNM.
Meghana Addla Suneel, another lawyer, told TNM that she had a similar experience in a habeas corpus case involving someone with far less power.
Meghana was representing Mohammed Akbar, a daily wage worker who lost the custody of his illegally adopted son to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). According to the habeas corpus petition, Akbar and his wife had adopted a baby from Ravvula Deva Rani, a woman known to them, who was unable to care for the infant. The adoption was carried out by executing a deed of adoption on April 30, 2024, three days after the child was born.
In February 2025, the CWC entered Akbar’s residence and took the child away following an FIR that alleged that the child was a victim of human trafficking and wasn’t adopted in compliance with the law.
“My client’s case was dismissed on the grounds that the CWC is a statutory body and hence Akbar’s child is not in illegal detention as I had argued. Additionally, the police had concluded that the child was a victim of human trafficking based on a confession statement, which is not acceptable proof in a court of law,” Meghana said.
In the court order accessed by TNM, Justice Bhattacharya dismissed Akbar’s petition with costs of Rs 25,000 to be paid to Mathru Abhaya Foundation for Girls in Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
“I admit that my clients did not follow the proper procedure for adoption. I also concede that I cannot criticise a judgement. But for the court to impose costs, that too as high as Rs 25,000, on my client who is a daily wage worker was alarming. There was no explanation in the order for why the cost was imposed either,” Meghana added.
Lawyers accused of arguing in ‘high-pitched voice’
Prabhakar Reddy, another advocate, introduced himself to TNM as Justice Bhattacharya’s “first victim in criminal cases”. In April 2025, Prabhakar had sought adjournment thrice in a criminal petition. “I had valid reasons for this and normally no judge objects in such cases,” he told TNM.
However, in an order dated April 2, Justice Bhattacharya pointed to the adjournment and directed the High Court’s registry to arrange for an advocate from the High Court Legal Services Committee to represent Prabhakar’s client. “The excuse given by counsel for seeking adjournment is irrelevant and unacceptable to the court,” she added.
On April 28, Prabhakar filed an Interlocutory Application asking Justice Bhattacharya to set aside the earlier order. The judge argued that replacing the advocate on record with a counsel from the legal services committee was a fair practice. She also noted in her order that “the counsel (Prabhakar Reddy) had argued in a high-pitched voice and in an offensive tone which is not expected of a member of the bar.”
The order also noted that “Rs 10,000 would be imposed on the appellant (Prabhakar Reddy’s client) to be paid to the Court Masters and Personal secretaries Association in the High Court”.
Prabhakar also alleged that in another criminal case where his client was convicted by a lower court for murder, Justice Bhattacharya adjourned the case 37 times soon after he had started arguing.
Lakka Shwetha, another advocate, said that Justice Bhattacharya had directed her to pay Rs 20,000 for not filing additional documents properly. “She said that I should have filed it in the Interlocutory Application instead of the main petition; however, that is generally not an accepted practice,” Shwetha said.
Speaking to TNM, retired Madras High Court judge Justice K Chandru attributed the advocates’ complaints to Justice Bhattacharya being from outside the state.
“Local judges generally comply with the bar far more than non-local judges who have their own yardstick on how courts function. If the non-local judge (in this case, Justice Bhattacharya) is strict, the bar will generally find it unfavourable,” Justice Chandru told TNM.
He also referred to Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to impose costs on a party for causing unnecessary delay. “Costs are imposed under Section 35B to hinder vexatious litigation [a term referring to lawsuits that abuse the court system],” he said, adding that if costs were not imposed, “bad cases can never be punished.”
Senior Supreme Court advocate Sanjoy Ghose said the protests by the advocates points to a problem between the bar and the bench. “It is evident from the cases mentioned that Justice Bhattacharya is a strict judge. That being said, I subscribe to the adage that the ‘Bar is the mother of the bench’. Generally, any bar has a tendency to glorify a judge because it works in their favour. But if overwhelmingly the bar is against a judge, then that is a cause for concern and points to a problem,” Sanjoy told TNM.
The THCAA’s Executive Committee decided on June 26 that they would boycott court number 5 (Justice Bhattacharya’s court) from Monday, June 30. They will also write to the President and Chief Justice of India asking for Justice Bhattacharya to be transferred, and until the transfer comes through, ensure that no cases are allotted to her.
When TNM reached out to A Jagan, the current president of THCAA, for comment, he said. “We will hold a meeting on Monday evening to reevaluate the situation. But the boycott is still going to continue as we have passed a resolution.”