Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Litigant Engaging New Lawyer To Reargue Case After Court Expressed Dissatisfaction On Merits

The Supreme Court recently(October 24) criticized a litigant who, through a newly engaged lawyer, tried to reargue a case despite the Court having previously expressed dissatisfaction with the case's merits after hearing arguments but allowed the lawyers to seek further instructions.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih observed –

“It is not the case that the learned senior counsel who argued the matter and who took time to take instructions are not available. There are cases and cases when we are not satisfied about the merits, instead of dismissing the petitions, we grant time to the counsel to take instructions. Members of the Bar very well know what instructions the advocates are supposed to take. Therefore, we do not endorse this practice adopted by the petitioner. Even if due to exigencies, a new counsel is engaged, he ought to state the instructions received. He cannot re-argue the case.”

During the hearing, Justice Oka pulled up the advocate on record for the petitioner –

“Is this your practice? That court hears the matter, court is against the counsel, you keep on changing counsel for that reason, taking chance with the court? Is it your practice? Is this the way you advocate of record is supposed to behave? Is it not your duty to tell the client that this practice should not be adopted? Is it not your duty?...This doesn't send good signals we are telling you”.

On October 3, 2024, two senior advocates argued on behalf of the petitioner, seeking a transfer of investigations of various cases out of state of West Bengal. However, the Court that day pointed out certain flaws in the prayer clauses and observed that, for most cases, the petitioner had already filed applications for quashing before the High Court. Despite this, the Court granted time to the advocates to take instructions instead of dismissing the petition on that day.

However, on October 23, another senior counsel requested an extended adjournment, which the Court denied. On the next day, a fourth senior advocate appeared, despite previous counsel remaining available. The Court expressed disapproval of this approach, indicating that a new counsel, if engaged, should present the instructions issued by the litigant rather than reargue the matter.

“We have learned one lesson. We should amend our ways of conducting proceedings. Now here after we will not indicate our mind to any counsel. We will simply hear the counsel without giving any opportunity we will simply keep on dismissing the matters. We committed mistake by expressing ourselves. We learnt a great lesson”, Justice Oka remarked during the hearing.

Ultimately, after briefly arguing, the senior counsel representing the petitioner requested withdrawal of the petition, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the High Court concerning a case.

The Supreme Court granted the request, dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn and allowing the petitioner to pursue proceedings in the High Court. It clarified that all arguments and contentions remain open for the parties in the pending High Court proceedings.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3/2020

Case Title – Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850