Conduct Of Advocates Addressing Court In High Decibel & In An Intimidating Manner Is Misconduct: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition with imposing rupees 1 Lakh in costs after issuing caution to counsel jeopardizing the harmony with the bench along with their professional careers by addressing the Court in a high decibel.
The Court recorded the conduct of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner in trying to address the Court in a “high pitched voice and also in an intimidating manner.”
“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,” the Court remarked.
A Single Bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar observed, “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 Counsels who adopt such practices are jeopardizing the harmony with the bench along with their professional careers, by ignoring the fact that they are not only required to conduct the case in a fair manner, but while doing so they are also officers of the Court.”
Advocate Venkata Raghu Mannepalli represented the petitioner.
The writ petition was filed to set aside and declare a notice regarding a special meeting to conduct elections for the positions of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of constitutional principles.
The petitioner, a former chairperson of the Municipality, contended that the notice issued lacked legality and justification. However, the respondent argued that the petitioner suppressed material facts in the petition by claiming to be the Chairperson both in the cause title of the Writ Petition as well as in the affidavit filed when a motion of No-confidence had been moved against her.
With regard to the issue raised by the petitioner, the Court examined relevant rules and notifications related to the election process for filling vacancies in the Municipality's office and found that the notice issued was in compliance with the provisions, specifically the Telangana Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Municipal Council and Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation) Rules, 2020.
The Court pointed out that the challenge by the petitioner was based on “irrelevant, unconnected and unsubstantiated allegations which have no bearing to the issue involved, so as to cause prejudice in the mind of the court against the respondents.”
The Court highlighted that the petitioner had previously filed similar writ petitions, including one withdrawn due to suppression of facts and stated that “the petitioner is in the habit of taking liberties in approaching the Court by filing Writ Petitions without any basis, not disclosing all the relevant facts, making uncorroborated allegations and also resorting to suppression, wasting judicial time, warranting imposition of exemplary costs.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
Cause Title: Smt. Kotha Arthica v. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Venkata Raghu Mannepalli
