'Wastes Precious Time Of Court': Allahabad HC Urges Lawyers To Avoid Citing Multiple Case-Laws On A Single Point
The Allahabad High Court has disapproved of the practice of supplying multiple case-laws, without connecting the same to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that it wastes the precious time of the Court and creates an unnecessary obstacle in expeditious dispensation of justice.
In that context, it was said that, "Keeping in view the conduct of the learned Counsel for the applicant in supplying a compilation of 13 judgments running into 242 pages, without even an index, and placing only one judgment of the Delhi High Court and leaving it for the Court to go through the remaining 12 judgments, the Court is constrained to observe that an increasing tendency of supplying multiple case-laws, without connecting the same to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand is being observed nowadays. This results in wastage of precious time of the Court and creates an unnecessary obstacle in expeditious dispensation of justice."
Counsel Pranjal Khanna, among others, appeared for the applicant.
In this case, the Bench was hearing a plea for bail under the Arms Act. Notably, at the closure of submissions, the counsel for the applicant supplied a compilation of photocopies of 13 judgments running into 242 pages, which has no index attached. He placed before the Court only one judgment and left the other judgments to be read by the Court itself.
To that extent, the Court expressed its dismay and observed that, "It would be proper and sufficient if the learned Counsel put up a proposition and then submit a case-law in support thereof. In case any proposition is supported by any land-mark judgment which has been followed consistently and repeatedly, it would be sufficient to cite that land-mark judgment, or at the most one more latest judgment in which it was followed or reiterated. The Counsel should not supply case laws without putting up a proposition and they should avoid the temptation of citing multiple case-laws on a single point, which does not make any beneficial difference. The learned Counsel are expected to assist the Court in arriving at a decision expeditiously without wasting the precious time of the Court so that the same time may be better utilized in the interest of some other litigants."
On dealing with all 13 judgments, the Court finally observed that the bail had to be rejected. To that end, it was observed that, "Having considered the nature of allegations against the applicant and the material relied upon by the prosecution, the status of the applicant as an expert shooter and a Member of Legislative Assembly, the possibility of the applicant being able to influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts disentitle the applicant to receive discretion of this Court by enlarging him on bail."
Cause Title: Abbas Ansari vs State of UP
Click here to read/download the Judgment
