Senior legal experts call it an act of overreach Argue that it is intimidation of judicial officers

■ In cases involving social media posts or comments where offences carry 3-7 years of imprisonment, magistrates are instructed to ensure a preliminary inquiry

■ Magistrates are directed to carefully examine the compliance of investigating officers

■ Deviations from circulars would be treated as contempt of court proceedings

Metro India News | AMARAVATI

A controversial circular issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, allegedly warning magistrates of contempt proceedings and departmental action for non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines, has triggered legal uproar. Senior legal experts and petitioners have called it an act of overreach, accusing the High Court Registry of issuing a directive that goes beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s actual judgments.

The circular, issued by Registrar (Judicial) Kamalakar Reddy on July 5, instructed all magistrates across the state to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Andhra Pradesh while remanding accused individuals in cases related to objectionable or inappropriate social media posts. The circular warned that any deviation from these guidelines would be viewed seriously and could invite contempt of court proceedings and departmental disciplinary action.

This directive, however, has come under sharp criticism from the legal fraternity. Advocate Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar from Vijayawada filed an urgent petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking to quash the circular, alleging that it unfairly threatens magistrates and is not supported by any directive from the Supreme Court.

During the court’s opening session on Wednesday, advocate Chaparla Sitaram appeared before the bench comprising Chief Justice Dheeraj Singh Thakur and Justice Chimalapati Ravi Kumar, urging for an immediate hearing of the case. He argued that the circular oversteps its bounds and was clearly intended to intimidate judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. He emphasized that nowhere in the Supreme Court’s rulings is there any direction to initiate contempt of court proceedings against magistrates who may not follow the guidelines.

“The Registrar has introduced a clause that doesn’t exist in the original judgments. This is dangerous and demoralizing for the independence of magistrates, who are expected to act in accordance with law, not under threat,” Sitaram told the bench. The bench agreed that the matter warranted serious attention and listed the case for further hearing.

Later in the day, senior advocate N. Subbarao, representing the petitioner, reinforced the argument by pointing out the misinterpretation in the circular. “In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court clearly states that police officers who violate arrest and remand procedures would face contempt.

There is no reference whatsoever to contempt against judicial magistrates. Yet, this circular warns them of both contempt and departmental inquiries,” he argued. “This is not only legally unsound but sets a disturbing precedent that undermines judicial independence.” The CJ bench, acknowledging the seriousness of the concerns raised, said it would examine the issue thoroughly and adjourned the matter for further hearing.