Nobody Can Be Contemned Unheard: Supreme Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Advocate By Uttarakhand HC

While expunging portions of the High Court's Order and allowing the appeal, a two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan held, "There is no necessity to reiterate that even the Courts, including a highest court of the Country, are bound by principle of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard."

"We are of the considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law" the Court stated further.

Advocate Vinod Kumar Shukla appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Bankey Bihari appeared for the Respondent.

Citing two previous instances, the Court said, "This Court, in the case of same learned Judge of the High Court on various occasions... have observed with disapproval the proclivity of the said learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against the advocates."

The case stemmed from a revision petition Advocate Dushyant Mainali assured he had filed on behalf of a client against a Judgment of the Small Causes Court in a case about eviction and recovery of rent. In an affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay, the client said he only got to know after receiving a parwana (an executing Order) for handing over the possession that the revision petition was, in fact, never filed.

In an Order passed in June 2022, a Singe Judge Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the High Court said, "Dushyant Mainali has duped him by making a false statement, which was bonafidely believed by the revisionist. In that eventuality, this Court directs the Registrar General of this Court to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Uttarakhand to draw and appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the professional misconduct on part of Mr. Dushyant Mainali and to conduct and conclude the proceedings against him within a period of six months from today and report back to this Court of decision taken."

The High Court said "this false assurance" extended by the counsel would amount to "a professional misconduct for which this Court is taking a suo moto cognizance and referring the matter to the bar council to draw an appropriate proceedings disciplinary against the counsel concerned for wrongful extension of information to the litigant due to which the revision had preferred the revision at a belated stage. The Bar Council is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedures governing with the disciplinary proceedings of the bar council as well as under the provisions of the Advocates act."

"[T]he following portion of the impugned judgment and order shall stand deleted/expunged from the records," the apex Court said in its November 25, 2024 Order.

Cause Title: Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora And Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) 15191/2022]