Maintain Courtroom Decorum: Allahabad HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On An Advocate For 'Wasting' Court's Time

The Court also took exception to his conduct of appearing in the (through Video Conferencing) wearing his coat and band and arguing the matter without informing the Court that he was appearing in person. The Court directed him to be 'cautious' in the future and ensure that he maintains the decorum and dignity of the Court.

In its September 10 order, a bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that Pracha had previously filed two petitions on identical subject matter before the Delhi High Court, wherein orders were passed to his satisfaction. Despite this, he moved to the Allahabad HC, seeking similar reliefs.

The Court said it could not understand why he had moved the HC in the State of Uttar Pradesh when he had chosen to file the first two writ petitions regarding the same subject matter (elections of 7-Rampur Loksabha Constituency in U.P. for the year 2024) before the Delhi High Court.

“This Court is unable to understand this shift being made by the petitioner when the petitioner had gone on record before the Delhi High Court stating that his prayer stands satisfied. 11. The petitioner cannot jump or shift mid way and choose the forum he prefers. He could have approached the Delhi High Court once again as the cause of action remains the same and appears to be only incidental to the earlier prayers granted by the Delhi High Court,” the Court noted in its order.

Regarding his conduct of arguing the matter in person while wearing his coat and band, the Court remarked that it was 'taken aback' when it was informed that Advocate Pracha was appearing in person.

In its order, the Court noted that it was only after the court dictated its order, proposing to impose costs on the petitioner, that the Court was informed that Advocate Pracha was actually appearing in person.

The court expressed surprise at this conduct, noting that Advocate Pracha had not removed his band before arguing. The court emphasized that this behaviour was unbecoming of a senior member of the Bar, who should be aware of the basic etiquette required when addressing the bench in person.

“This behaviour is not expected of a Senior member of the Bar who is expected to be aware of the basic etiquette to be followed while addressing the Bench in person. Mr. Pracha is directed to be cautious in the future and ensure that he maintains the decorum and dignity of the Court. Another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner had filed this writ petition through an Advocate (Mr. Omar Zamin). Having done so he could not have appeared in person without removing his Advocate or having taken leave of the Court,” the Court remarked.

In light of the fact that the writ petition had been wrongly filed and had resulted in the loss of this Court's precious time, coupled with the 'inappropriate methodology' adopted by him while appearing in person, the Court dismissed his writ petition with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/—to be paid to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within 30 days from the date.

If the cost is not paid, the Court directed the Registrar General to take necessary action to recover it in accordance with the law.