Bombay HC Asks Bar Council To Clarify Stand On Complaints Filed Against Advocates For Appearing For Their Client, Calls It 'Serious & Larger Issue'

While noting that a mother and son duo had filed a complaint against an advocate who was representing their daughter/sister in her matrimonial dispute, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) to clarify its stance on the issue of litigants unnecessarily filing complaints against advocates and impleading them as respondents in writ petitions. 

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna questioned the locus of the petitioners (mother and son) for filing such a petition seeking registration of a perjury case against their own daughter/sister and her advocate. The petition also sought the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the advocate and her client.

The bench after noting the prayers said it "not only surprised them but pricked their judicial conscience."

"We are more concerned with the ingenuity of the petitioners to implead the advocate as a party respondent and as to with what locus she could be impleaded as a party and asked to defend these legal proceedings. This is a serious and a larger issue as such relief is being sought against an Advocate, that too in a writ petition," the judges recorded in the order passed on March 21. 

The bench further noted that the petitioners have filed complaints the woman advocate before the BCMG. This position taken by the petitioners, the bench said, brings to the fore a concern not only concerning the administration of justice as it is with the assistance of Lawyers/Advocates of the parties, the Court adjudicates the lis between the parties.

"Advocates are officers of the Court while discharging in their obligation towards their clients, hence, it is a matter of concern when proceedings are resorted of the nature in hand against the Advocates. The issue would require a deeper scrutiny. We would also examine whether this would also amount to an abuse of process of law, considering the manner in which these legal proceedings are initiated against Advocates, representing their clients, prima facie without any genuine cause and that too against a woman lawyer," the bench observed in the order. 

The order states that the petitioners complained against the woman's lawyer merely because she 'assisted' her estranged husband, who is stated to be repeatedly defeating the orders of the Court and who prima facie appears to be guilty of contempt of several orders passed by the Court in not paying the maintenance. The judges, therefore ordered the BCMG chairman to ensure some Senior Advocate represents it in the instant petition, on the next date of hearing. 

"We direct the Chairman of the BCMG to depute a Senior Advocate who would represent it (BCMG) in larger interest of the Advocates and more particularly women lawyers, considering the fact that practicing Advocates of this Court are being made parties in such proceedings and complaints are filed against them. If such actions on the part of the litigants is permitted, whether the BCMG needs to take a position is also an issue," the judges said in the order.

Further, the judges asked Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar to appear as Amicus Curiae in the present proceedings to assist the Court and address on the larger legal issues as noted in the order. The judges further appointed Senior Advocate Ashok Mundargi also to assist the Court on the implication of the criminal law as invoked in the proceedings, in the context of the prayers which are made including to implead the Registrar General as the first respondent in the instant petition.

"We are constrained to pass such order as we have noted that such proceedings concern not only the administration of justice but also in regard to the rights and privileges of the Advocates who day-in and day-out appear before this Court," the judges opined. 

Meanwhile, the bench also noted that the husband of the woman involved in the matrimonial dispute, has successfully avoided making payment of the maintenance amount and openly defied the orders passed by the High Court.

"Presently, he is said to be in Dubai, however, he is under the impression that strong arms of law cannot reach him in Dubai. However, such assumption on his part is wholly mistaken and more particularly, when he is an Indian Citizen and working in a Foreign Country on Indian Passport. We shall deal with this issue separately," the bench indicated in the order. 

The judges, while adjourning the hearing in the matter till April 4, also ordered the petitioners to file their affidavits spelling out their locus in filing the present proceedings.