Allahabad High Court Cautions Bar Members Against Actions That Could Tarnish Judges' Image In The Eyes Of Public
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that members of the Bar should be more responsible when their actions may malign or, to some extent, question a judge's image in the eyes of the public at large. The Court added that the advocates should not act in a manner which gives the public an occasion to say that HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE NOW DECIDING CASES WHICH THEY WERE PURSUING FOR...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that members of the Bar should be more responsible when their actions may malign or, to some extent, question a judge's image in the eyes of the public at large.
The Court added that the advocates should not act in a manner which gives the public an occasion to say that HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE NOW DECIDING CASES WHICH THEY WERE PURSUING FOR THEIR CLIENTS.
A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed this, irked by an advocate's failure to inform the bench while seeking withdrawal of a case on behalf of appellants that Justice Shailendra was once involved in the case as counsel for respondent no. 1.
The Court said that although the issue may appear to be too small prima facie, it has significant value in the institution's interest.
Essentially, the Court expressed displeasure over the fact that the brief holder appearing for the advocate for the appellants did not inform the Court that the matter should be placed before another Bench for passing orders on withdrawal application.
“Learned brief holder of (counsel for appellants) today, did not inform the Court that this matter should be placed before another Bench for passing orders on withdrawal application. Even on 04.10.2024, no mention was made in that direction, otherwise the Court would have directed listing of withdrawal application before another Bench on that very day,” the Court observed.
Justice Shailendra noted that since he was not apprised that he appeared as an advocate for the respondent in the case, he allowed the withdrawal application in Court and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
However, he had to change the order once the Bench Secretary informed him that he was a counsel in this appeal. He added that the question was about not informing the bench about the fact by either side that the sitting judge earlier actively pressed for the rights of respondent No. 1.
In this regard, the Court also observed that the bench functions based on the faith reposed by members of the Bar and vice versa. Both work to administer justice for society; thus, it is the pious duty of both sides not to create a situation that may shatter our confidence in ourselves.
In view of this above, reproving the conduct of the brief holder as 'not fair', the Court, taking a lenient view of the matter, warned the counsel to be more careful in future while addressing the Court.
The judge also advised him to review the record and check the list before addressing the Court.
“The mistake may be intentional, unintentional, deliberate or indeliberate, but one thing is clear that the Court and its proceedings cannot be taken for granted,” the Court added.
With these observations, the bench directed the matter to be listed before another Bench after obtaining a nomination from the Chief Justice in the first week of December 2024.