Advocates Move Supreme Court Against Gujarat HC Order Directing Investigation Against Them For Allegedly Forging Vakalatnama

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by two practising advocates from Gujarat against whom the Gujarat High Court has directed to lodge an inquiry for alleged misconduct of forging the vakalatnama of their client. The petitioners have sought a stay on the order, contending that such a direction impinged upon their reputation, dignity and right to continue their profession under Article 21 and 19(1)(g) respectively. 

Senior Advocate Mr Yatin Oza appeared for the petitioner-lawyers on April 10, before the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud requesting for an early listing of the matter.

The bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar of Gujarat High Court on April 8, in an interim order directed to lodge a complaint and investigate against two lawyers, namely Mr Sandipkumar M Patel and Mr Viral J Vyas who were appearing for their client Mr Bharatbhai Dhirubhai Ahir. The court passed the order while hearing a petition to release the latter's Toyota Innova car seized in relation to an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. 

It is contended by the petitioners that during the hearing, allegedly one person claiming to be the petitioner's client Mr Aahir (Respondent no.2 in the SLP) appeared before the bench stating that he never engaged the said petitioners in the capacity of lawyers nor filed the present petition. He stated before the court that while his vehicle was stolen in 2016 he had only filed a complaint but never engaged a lawyer to release the vehicle in question. 

Comparing the signature of the person claimed as Mr Aahir to the signature assigned in the petition before the High Court, the bench concluded that prima facie the signature in the petition appeared to be forged and that the petition has been filed by someone else impersonating the said Mr Aahir. 

In furtherance of the same, the bench ordered a complaint to be lodged against the advocates, along with a thorough inquiry to be done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar of the High Court. 

"8. In view of the above, this Court is of prima facie view that thorough inquiry/investigation is required to be initiated in the matter. Hence, Registrar General, Gujarat High Court is directed to authorize an officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar to lodge a complaint in this regard." 

The petitioner-advocates have contended that the High Court overlooked the cogent explanation given by them before the bench, and instead of calling for a written affirmed statement from Respondent no.2 , the bench took the words of Respondent no. 2 as the gospel truth and initiated an inquiry. The aggrieved petitioners stress that not only does this negatively affect their hard-earned reputation built in the legal fraternity over 16 years but also impacts their right to continue their profession under Article 19(1)(g). 

"The impugned order also ignores the Fundamental Right of the Petitioners to continue his profession as an advocate, protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as also the reputation and dignity of the Petitioners, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though a cogent explanation was given by Petitioner No. 1, the Hon'ble High Court brushed aside the same without giving any reasons as to why the same cannot be accepted."  

The explanation before the High Court as submitted by the petitioners was that (1) the petition had come through a known source; (2) the deponent was identified in good faith; (3) since the said matter was adjourned 7 times before, the petitioner did not try to proceed- establishing his bonafide; (4) petitioner has been practising for 16 years without an unblemished record of his credibility.  

Case Details: Sandipkumar M Patel & Anr v. State of Gujarat & Ors.