A new controversy erupted in the Gauhati High Court on Wednesday as Kamal Nayan Choudhury, President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA), formally urged Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair to recuse himself from hearing contempt petitions filed by Advocate General Devajit Saikia. Choudhury raised serious objections after learning that Justice Nair had liked a social media post related to the contempt proceedings. He argued that this act compromised judicial impartiality and raised a genuine apprehension of bias in the minds of the litigants.
Choudhury submitted his request during the court proceedings, stating that the judge’s online activity could potentially influence the case’s outcome and damage the credibility of the judicial process. He emphasized that the judiciary must maintain not only actual impartiality but also the perception of impartiality to uphold public confidence in the legal system. The court took note of the request but did not issue any immediate order. Justice Nair, meanwhile, continued to preside over the matter and adjourned the hearing for a later date.
The contempt case in question stemmed from the fallout of a larger rift between the Bar Association and the Advocate General. Devajit Saikia, who holds the constitutional post of Advocate General of Assam, had earlier filed petitions against multiple senior lawyers, including office bearers of the GHCBA, accusing them of making public remarks that allegedly undermined the dignity of the court. The matter has attracted wide attention within legal circles across the Northeast, particularly because of the rare nature of such high-profile contempt allegations within the state judiciary.
As the proceedings moved forward, the Bar President’s call for recusal further deepened the tensions. Several lawyers present in the courtroom expressed concern over the implications of social media actions by sitting judges. They questioned whether digital footprints could be seen as indicators of a judge’s leaning or bias. A few lawyers, however, argued that merely liking a post on social media does not necessarily mean endorsement or prejudice. The issue has sparked a larger debate among legal professionals about the appropriate boundaries for judicial conduct on digital platforms.
Legal scholars following the case pointed out that while Indian law does not yet prescribe specific digital codes of conduct for judges, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct do insist on impartiality, integrity, and propriety. These principles, widely accepted as ethical guidelines for the judiciary, serve as a foundation for judicial behavior across Commonwealth nations, including India. They stressed that any appearance of bias—real or perceived—must be addressed transparently to prevent erosion of trust in the justice delivery system.
Inside the courtroom, the atmosphere remained tense. Choudhury’s team maintained that the judge’s action, however minor, had already damaged the sanctity of the ongoing case. They expressed their unwillingness to argue the matter before Justice Nair and pressed for an alternative bench to be assigned. The Advocate General’s office, however, opposed the request and stated that the recusal demand lacked substantive grounds and seemed aimed at delaying the judicial process.
Outside the court, reactions poured in from lawyers, activists, and former judges. Some supported the recusal plea, stating that judicial propriety must extend into the digital world. Others felt the move bordered on excessive sensitivity and could open the floodgates for frequent recusal requests based on minor or unrelated digital activity. A few even warned that overemphasis on digital behavior might discourage judges from engaging with online platforms in any form, potentially isolating them from public discourse.
The matter is likely to be heard again in the coming days. It remains unclear whether Justice Nair will step aside or continue hearing the case. The Gauhati High Court Registry has not issued any official comment. Meanwhile, the legal community watches closely, as the case continues to raise questions about digital etiquette, judicial neutrality, and the evolving intersection between law and technology.
As the courtroom drama unfolds, senior advocates from the Gauhati High Court Bar Association have begun to deliberate internally on broader implications. They convened an emergency meeting on Thursday morning to assess not just the specific recusal request but also the institutional impact of such incidents on the court’s functioning. Several members at the meeting emphasized the need to establish a clear protocol for raising concerns related to digital interactions by sitting judges. They discussed drafting a representation to the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, urging him to create guidelines that could address future conflicts of this nature.
Meanwhile, junior members of the bar expressed dismay over the growing tension between the Bar Association leadership and the judiciary. Some said the environment of confrontation threatens to overshadow the core issues involved in the contempt case. Others worried that continued discord could harm the professional rapport between lawyers and judges, which is essential for smooth court functioning. One young advocate noted that the focus should remain on ensuring accountability for all stakeholders—both on the bench and at the bar—without allowing personal rivalries to distort the legal process.
Civil society groups also began voicing their opinions on the matter. A prominent rights-based organization in Assam released a statement calling for introspection within the legal fraternity. It stressed the importance of upholding public faith in the judiciary while also defending the right of citizens—including lawyers—to critique judicial conduct where necessary. The group also requested the High Court to treat the recusal plea with transparency and sensitivity, so as not to give rise to speculation or mistrust.
At the national level, legal observers and retired judges reacted cautiously. Some suggested that this case could set a precedent in India regarding the role of judges on social media. They argued that a line must be drawn between personal freedom and judicial decorum. Others pointed out that while recusal is a matter of individual conscience, courts must be careful not to allow social media dynamics to influence case assignments or proceedings. They called for the Supreme Court or the Law Commission of India to take note and possibly draft a uniform advisory regarding digital conduct for judges.
In Guwahati, the atmosphere remained charged. Lawyers and legal journalists gathered in corridors speculating on the next move—both by the judge and by the Chief Justice. The upcoming hearing, they said, could become a landmark moment, not for its legal complexity, but for its ethical implications. Many agreed that while technology continues to blur lines between personal and professional spaces, institutions like the judiciary must evolve in their response while preserving foundational values of independence, fairness, and restraint.
As of now, all eyes remain on Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair. Whether he chooses to recuse himself or justify his position, the case has already opened a new chapter in how digital conduct intersects with judicial accountability in India.