Court & Its Proceedings Can’t Be Taken For Granted: Allahabad HC Warns Advocate For Not Informing That Presiding Judge Himself Appeared As Counsel In Matter Prior To His Elevation
The Allahabad High Court has issued a warning to an Advocate for not informing the Judge that in the matter placed before him, he himself appeared as Counsel before his elevation to the Bench.
Taking a lenient view, the High Court asked the young counsel making regular appearance before the Court, to be more careful in future.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra said, “The mistake may be intentional, unintentional, deliberate or indeliberate, but one thing is clear that the Court and its proceedings cannot be taken for granted.”
Advocate Manish Kumar represented the Petitioner while Advocate R.K. Misra represented the Respondent.
While considering the appeal listed on November 11, 2024 in the cause list at serial No. 3157, Advocate Siddharth S Srivastava, brief holder of Rahul Sahai (appellants’ Counsel), appeared and stated that in this appeal an application for withdrawal was there, which might be allowed. The Court, as usual, believing the statement of counsel, allowed the withdrawal application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Thereafter, the Bench Secretary informed Justice Shailendra that he was counsel in this appeal. The Court, then, checked up the record and found that earlier Advocate Neeraj Agarwal was representing respondent No. 1, however, the said respondent engaged Justice Shailendra (prior to his elevation) as a counsel. Before any of these matters could be decided, Justice Shailendra was elevated to the Bench in February, 2023.
Justice Shailendra clarified that the Bench wasn't informed about the fact by either side that he was actively pressing the rights of respondent No. 1. The bare application came up before him on October 4,2024, on which date, the Court directed the Office to list the application with previous papers on the next day i.e. on November 11, 2024.
“Learned brief holder of Shri Rahul Sahai, Advocate, today, did not inform the Court that this matter should be placed before another Bench for passing orders on withdrawal application. Even on 04.10.2024, no mention was made in that direction, otherwise the Court would have directed listing of withdrawal application before another Bench on that very day. Since, I was not apprisedof the aforesaid situation, I allowed the withdrawal application in Court and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, after the aforesaid situation came to my notice, I was compelled to change the order in these terms”, the Bench said.
Throwing more light on such situations, the Bench observed, “The responsibility of members of the Bar increases more when their action may result in maligning or to an extent questioning the image of a judge in the eyes of public at large which may get an occasion to say that HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE NOW DECIDING CASES WHICH THEY WERE PURSUING FOR THEIR CLIENTS.”
According to the Bench, the conduct of Advocate Siddharth Srivastava, who is supposed to go through the record and check the list also before addressing the Court, was found to be not fair.
“The mistake may be intentional, unintentional, deliberate or indeliberate, but one thing is clear that the Court and its proceedings cannot be taken for granted”, the Bench said while issuing a warning to Advocate Srivastava in view of the fact that he is a young counsel making regular appearance before the High Court. The Bench also asked him to be more careful in future while addressing the Court.
The Bench directed the matter to be listed before another Bench after obtaining nomination from The Chief Justice in the first week of December, 2024.
Cause Title: Rajneesh Kumar And Others V. Santosh Kumar And Others [Case No. SECOND APPEAL No. - 626 of 2006]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Manish Kumar Nigam & Rahul Sahai
Respondent: Advocates R.K. Misra, Arvind Kumar, Kshitij Shailendra (prior to his elevation) Neeraj Agarwal