Apex Court Expunges High Court's Remarks Against Lawyer On Professional Competence, Says Lawyer Should Have Been Given Notice And Heard Before Making Remark

The bench further observed that the observations in the impugned judgment are liable to be struck down, keeping in line with the settled law that any order inviting adverse civil consequences has to be proceeded by the principles of natural justice.

Consequentially, a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “We find that the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 25 and 26 were not warranted. The petitioner, who is a lawyer, while drafting the habeas corpus petition for his client has specifically mentioned about the bail application being filed by the writ petitioner(s) and also about the rejection of the same. As such, the observations of the High Court that the petitioner, who is a lawyer, has suppressed the material facts is not borne out of the record”.

“In any case, before making such adverse observations against the counsel, it was necessary for the High Court to have given notice and an opportunity of being heard. Indisputably, this is not done in the instant case. This is, more so, when the High Court has made observations regarding the professional competence of the petitioner(s)”, the bench further noted in the order.

Advocate Yogendra Singh, the petitioner appeared in person.

In the present matter, the High Court was of the opinion that the original petitioner’s bail application was already been rejected by the concerned court by order dated July 11, 2023, therefore he ought to have invoked the powers of this Court under Section 439 CrPC. for filing the bail application but instead of invoking the same, his counsel (the petitioner advocate herein) wrongly advised the petitioner to move the Habeas Corpus writ petition without challenging the judicial remand order, which clearly indicated that the professional incompetence of the present petitioner.

“Not only this, the learned counsel during this marathon argument of two days never divulged this important aspect of this issue, that petitioner’s bail application was rejected on 11.07.2023. When a counsel is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, he must come with clean hands. We are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner without annexing the bail rejection order has made a passing reference, so as to justify his conduct”, the impugned judgment read.

Moreover, when he has only given a passing reference that the petitioner's bail application was rejected on 11.07.2023 without annexing the bail rejection order, which as per the Court clearly established the fact that he wanted to hide something while invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.

In pursuance of the same, through the impugned order, the bench rejected the Habeas Corpus petition with the cost of ₹ 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only), which the Advocate was to deposit with the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad within a period of one month. Further, if he failed to deposit the cost, the Registrar General of the Court was directed to inform the District Magistrate/Collector, Varanasi for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue.

Cause Title: Yogendra Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.