Advocate Should Argue His Client's Grievance, Not His Own : Mumbai Court
An Advocate should plead his client's grievance and not his own, a sessions court observed while rejecting a convict's plea regarding his "forcible" vaccination against the covid-19 virus. Special Judge Sanjashree Gharat noted that the convict had not refused the jab when the police took him to the hospital; however, his lawyer Nilesh Ojha was against vaccination and had filed a...
An Advocate should plead his client's grievance and not his own, a sessions court observed while rejecting a convict's plea regarding his "forcible" vaccination against the covid-19 virus.
Special Judge Sanjashree Gharat noted that the convict had not refused the jab when the police took him to the hospital; however, his lawyer Nilesh Ojha was against vaccination and had filed a petition challenging compulsory vaccination in the High Court.
"It is to be noted that the advocate representing party has to plead the grievance of his party. Therefore, there should be grievance of the party and not of advocate. Wherever it is right, there is a remedy. The provisions are available for safeguarding the right of parties," the judge observed.
The court refused to discuss the case laws cited in the 33-page application filed on August 24, observing that the accused hadn't even interacted with his lawyer since his conviction in a POCSO case on August 18.
In the application filed by Ojha on behalf of convict Pankaj Kohli, he sought action against police officers and doctors for vaccinating the convict "despite his strong refusal / oppose" before cops took him to prison after his conviction.
In their reply, the police and prison officials said they were only following official protocol and the High Court's directions regarding compulsory vaccination of all prison inmates above 45 years. They claimed that vaccination is important for the social health of the prisoners. Moreover, nobody was vaccinated against their wish.
On the same day, the court interacted with the accused when he was brought from prison "in order to verify contents of the application." However, the accused said that his family and advocate neither met him in prison nor contacted him in any manner.
He told the court that he informed his family about his vaccination only earlier in the day, and they may have informed the advocate." Therefore, the question arises at whose instructions the present application is drafted which is running 33 pages and produced on the very same day," the court observed.
Regarding vaccination, the convict said he had watched some video and therefore didn't want o get vaccinated. However, when the court asked him if he informed the police officer who took him for vaccination, the doctors who vaccinated him or the jail staff, he responded in the negative.
"Therefore, the contention made in the application that the accused was forcibly vaccinated is devoid of any merit. In fact, it appears that he is not aware of contents of the present application," the court observed.
Case Title: Pankaj Arjunbhai Koli vs The State of Maharashtra
Click Here To Read/ Download Order