'Obstructs Administration Of Justice': Telangana HC Warns Counsel Of Misconduct For High-Pitched Voice, Approaching Court In Intimidating Manner

Recently, the Telangana High Court in a stern order criticized the decorum of a counsel who represented before the Court in a high-pitched and intimidating manner.

Justice T. Vinod Kumar took serious note of the conduct of the Counsel and noted that off-late, this had become a trend, where lawyers appearing before a Bench try to intimidate the Bench by raising their voices.

He noted that such conduct would not only amount to misconduct under the Advocates Act but, also jeopardize the relationship between the bar and the bench.

While emphasizing that the Bench is not deterred by such actions, Justice Vinod, in the judgment goes on to say that this incident has been brought to light, only as a 'cautionary tale' for the lawyers appearing before the Court.

“The conduct of the Counsels addressing the Court in a high decibel, of late has become a regular practice in order to deter the Court from either taking up or not taking up their cases. It is to be noted that the said conduct on the part of the Counsel which obstructs administration of justice amounts to Misconduct under Section 35 the Advocates Act having a wider import. Though this Court is not deterred by such a kind of practices or tactics adopted by the Counsel, it feels necessary to place the same on record, so that it would act as a cautionary tale to the Counsels appearing before the Court.”

At the end of the judgment, Justice Vinod added a note, directing the Registry to mark a copy of this order to the State Bar Council so that the Bar Council can take steps to inculcate discipline in the Advocates while at the time of enrolment as well as at the time periodical renewal of the certificate of practice.

Background:

The order was passed in a Writ petition filed by an ex Chairperson of the Adibatla municipality challenging the notification issued to fil up the casual vacancies in the Corporation.

The bench after coming down heavy on the counsel, also noted that the petitioner herself had misled the Court and approached the court observed that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that she had been removed from the above-mentioned Municipality by way of a no-confidence motion in February, creating a casual vacancy in the municipality, and the Notification had been issued to fill up the same. It was more importantly noticed, that since the petitioner had lost the confidence of the Municipality, she had no locus to file the present Writ.

The Bench criticized the petitioner, for being unaware of the procedure adopted for electing a Chairperson as well as moving of No-confidence motion and trying to mislead the Court by frivolous pleas of caste and gender, which had no bearing on the case at hand.

“The said conduct of the petitioner only goes to show that the petitioner believes in adopting the approach of approbate and reprobate to suit her convenience and suffers from selective amnesia.”

The Court also noted that similar cases had been filed by the petitioner previously, and to deter the petitioner a cost of 1lakh was imposed.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8719 OF 2024

Smt. Kotha Arthica vs. State of TS

Counsel on behalf of petitioner: Venkata Raghu Mannepalli

Counsel on behalf of respondent: GP for Revenue.

Click Here To Read/Download Order