Though Advocates Settle Pleadings & Argue On Clients' Instructions, They Have Duty To Verify Facts From Case Records: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that advocates settle pleadings and argue in court on instructions given by the clients, they also have the duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case.

"It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice," observed a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi.

The bench emphasised that "a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated senior advocates".

"Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated," the judgment authored by Justice Trivedi stated.

The bench made this observations in the judgment rejecting the bail plea of Saumya Chaurasia, former deputy secretary to the ex-Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, Bhupesh Baghel, in a money laundering case.

In this case, Chaurasia had appealed against a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court denying her bail, contending that certain scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had been dropped from the chargesheet. She submitted that the high court had perused a chargesheet filed on June 8 and a cognisance order filed on June 16, but had refused to recognise the absence of scheduled offences against her. Notably, the chargesheet was filed and the cognisance was taken after the High Court had reserved the judgment.  During the hearing of the special leave petition, the top court asked if the chargesheet and the cognizance order were brought to the notice of the High Court, to which the petitioners' lawyers answered in the affirmative.

However, it later emerged that the chargesheet was not actually produced before the high court. Citing the Supreme Court Rules, the bench in its judgment emphasised that special leave petitions should be confined to the pleadings before the lower court and any necessary annexures. In this connection, the court also criticised the oversight in verifying facts by Chaurasia's legal team.

Though the Court said that the Special Leave Petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, it proceeded to decide the merits of the case as well. While holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, the Court also imposed an extraordinary cost of one lakh for making incorrect statements in the appeal.

The cost was directed to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.

Case Details :Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8847 of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

Click here to read the judgment