Supreme Court Rejects Advocates' Challenge To Gujarat HC's Order Directing Investigation Against Them For Allegedly Forging Vakalatnama

The matter was considered by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta. 

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Yatin Oza appeared for the petitioners.

Petitioners 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.

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 who were appearing for their client one Mr. 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.

However, as per the petitioners' stance, during the hearing, allegedly, one person claiming to be the petitioner's client, Mr Aahir, appeared before the bench. He alleged that he never engaged the said petitioners in the capacity of lawyers nor filed the present petition. He further stated that while his vehicle was stolen in 2016, he had only filed a complaint and never engaged a lawyer to release the vehicle in question.

The court compared the signature of a person identified as Mr. Aahir to the signature on the petition submitted to the High Court. Based on this, the Court concluded that prima facie, the signature in the petition was forged and that the petition had been filed by someone else impersonating 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.

In view of this, petitioners argued that the High Court overlooked the cogent explanation given by them before the bench and took the words of Respondent no. 2 as the gospel truth and initiated an inquiry.

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 seven 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.

Click Here To Read/Download Order