Supreme Court Shocked At Advocate Telling High Court That He Won't Argue Before Particular Bench, Issues Contempt Notice

The Supreme Court (on December 01), while hearing a criminal appeal, expressed its shock at the conduct of an advocate for refusing to argue before the High Court.

The matter concerns the conviction of the accused persons/ appellants under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Against this conviction, the appellants moved the Allahabad High Court. Therein, the Court had granted them bail till the disposal of the appeal. However, when the matter was listed for hearing, the Counsel representing the appellants refused to argue before the High Court. Pursuant to this, the interim bail granted to the appellants was canceled. 

Against this backdrop, the matter traveled to the Top Court. The matter was before Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal. With respect to this conduct of the appellants' advocate, the Division Bench stated:

“We are shocked to note that the advocate appointed by the appellants was bold enough to tell the concerned Bench of the High Court that he would not like to argue the matter before that Bench. We are separately dealing with the conduct of the advocate.”

The Court further observed that the said conduct may, prima facie, amount to criminal contempt. In view of this, the Court issued a show cause notice to the concerned advocate for his appearance before the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the Court also opined that the bail should not have been cancelled because of the default by the appellants' counsel.

“Needless to add that only on account of default by the advocate for the appellants, the appellants ought not to have been penalized by passing a drastic order of cancelling bail.”

Elaborating, the Court went on to state that the High Court could have instead appointed amicus curiae for the accused and heard the matter on merits. Moreso, in the view of the well-settled principle that in case the accused' counsel seeks for an 'unwarranted adjournment' in an appeal against conviction, the mentioned option can be adopted by the High Court.

“This Court has repeatedly taken the view that in a given case where an unwarranted adjournment is sought by the advocate representing the accused in the appeal against conviction, the Court has an option of appointing an amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the accused and hearing the appeal on merits. The said course could have been adopted by the High Court.”

Thus, the Court restored interim bail order passed by the High Court. The Apex Court, in its order, also clarified that if, during the hearing of an appeal, unwarranted adjournment is sought, then the High Court can appoint amicus curiae.

“We make it clear that as and when the appeal is fixed for hearing, if the appellants seek an unwarranted adjournment, it will be open for the Court to proceed with the hearing of the Criminal Appeal by appointing an advocate as an amicus curiae.”

Case Title: Krishna Kumar Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh., Diary No.- 18594 - 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1053

Click here to read/download judgment