Delhi HC Transfers Rohini Court Judge Rakesh Kumar to Judicial Academy After Viral Courtroom Clash Video

The Delhi High Court on May 18, 2026, ordered the attachment of District Judge Rakesh Kumar V to the Delhi Judicial Academy after a video of a heated altercation between the judge and an advocate at Rohini Court went viral on social media. The incident, which took place on May 16 during court proceedings, involved a clash between the judge and Advocate Rajiv Tehlan, President of the Rohini Court Bar Association. The video showed an increasingly volatile courtroom environment that required intervention from court staff and security personnel. District Judge Dheeraj Mittal has been appointed as the replacement. In response, members of all District Court Bar Associations across Delhi abstained from judicial work on May 18.

What Happened at Rohini Court: The Judge-Lawyer Clash

The altercation reportedly began on May 16, 2026, when District Judge Rakesh Kumar V denied a request for a passover from Advocate Rajiv Tehlan, the President of the Rohini Court Bar Association. A passover is a routine request to defer the hearing of a case to later in the day's list to allow the lawyer time to attend to other matters. The denial of this request led to a heated verbal exchange between the judge and the advocate. In the viral video, the advocate is heard accusing the judge of using a derogatory word against him. The situation escalated to a point where court staff and security personnel had to intervene to prevent further confrontation. The video quickly spread across social media platforms, drawing widespread attention to the incident and reigniting the debate about courtroom decorum, judicial temperament, and the relationship between the bench and the bar.

Delhi High Court's Administrative Action

The Delhi High Court acted swiftly, ordering the attachment of District Judge Rakesh Kumar V to the Delhi Judicial Academy on Sunday, May 18. Attachment to the Judicial Academy effectively removes the judge from regular judicial duties and assigns them to the Academy, which is responsible for the training and continuing education of judicial officers. This is a standard administrative measure used when a judge's conduct requires review or when a situation demands the judge's immediate removal from their current posting to restore normalcy. District Judge Dheeraj Mittal, who previously held the position of Additional Director at the Academy, has been appointed to succeed Judge Rakesh Kumar at Rohini Court. The High Court's decision was taken as an administrative measure and does not constitute a finding of misconduct; it is a step to de-escalate the situation while the matter is examined further.

Lawyers Boycott All Delhi District Courts on May 18

In response to the incident, members of all District Court Bar Associations in Delhi abstained from judicial work on May 18, 2026. The boycott affected proceedings across all District Courts in the capital, leading to significant disruption of court business for the day. The Delhi Judicial Service Association, which represents judicial officers, issued a statement condemning the circulation of viral courtroom videos and extended support to the judicial officer involved. The Association described the incident as a direct assault on the judiciary and called for measures to prevent the recording and distribution of courtroom proceedings without authorisation. The Bar Associations, on the other hand, supported the advocate involved and demanded action against what they described as inappropriate conduct by the judge.

Legal Position on Courtroom Recording and Judicial Decorum

The recording and circulation of courtroom proceedings without permission raises several legal issues. The Supreme Court has held that courts are public forums, but this does not extend an unrestricted right to record proceedings. Unauthorised recording may amount to contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if it interferes with the administration of justice. The Delhi High Court has previously issued directions restricting the use of mobile phones for recording inside courtrooms. At the same time, the incident highlights the broader issue of bench-bar relations in Indian courts. The Supreme Court has emphasised that judges must maintain judicial temperament and dignity, while advocates are expected to conduct themselves with professionalism and courtesy. When disagreements arise during proceedings, the established protocol is for the aggrieved party to raise the matter through the appropriate administrative or disciplinary channels rather than engaging in confrontation.

Key Takeaways

District Judge Rakesh Kumar V has been transferred to the Delhi Judicial Academy after a viral video showed a heated courtroom exchange with a Bar Association president at Rohini Court. District Judge Dheeraj Mittal has been appointed as his replacement. Lawyers across all Delhi District Courts boycotted work on May 18 in response. The Delhi Judicial Service Association condemned the circulation of courtroom videos and backed the judge. Unauthorised recording of court proceedings may constitute contempt. The matter remains under administrative review by the Delhi High Court.