A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice SG Mehare recently frowned upon two lawyers who misled the court and their clients, observing that the “level had reached the zenith”.
“This is an example of degrading the legal profession. One can understand from this case how much the litigant overpowered the profession, and law practitioners are providing result-oriented services to please the client without bothering their carrier. The level of misleading the Court also reached the zenith. It’s a matter of serious concern. Whom to believe is a big question. Unfortunately, the newly entered junior lawyers are also involved in such practice by their seniors,” the bench observed.
The high court was hearing a bail plea filed by an individual booked under Section 307 and Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
After the state was served notice, the counsel appearing for the applicant sought time from the court to take instructions from the client. On the next date, the court found out that an affidavit was filed granting no objection by the eyewitness instead of the complainant. Pertinently, the accused and the eyewitness were in a live-in relationship.
The court while referring both the lawyers to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa noted: “The counsel for the applicant is senior to the counsel appearing for the eyewitness, and they are practicing together. This was the level of practice to mislead the Court to please the client. Though the learned counsel for the applicant explained that it was his inadvertent mistake, the facts do not support believing him. His Junior appears to have unnecessarily brought in trouble. He had an opportunity to deny filing such an application, but he did not deny and filed the affidavit of the eye witness. The conduct of the lawyers appearing for the respective parties is a clear misconduct and liable to be referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.”
The court then rejected the bail application on the grounds that the conduct of the lawyers is grounds for rejection of bail and also noted that the applicant could not be granted bail on merits.
However, both counsels later approached the judge along with office-bearers of the bar association with an unconditional apology and requested the court to expunge the remarks on their conduct. The counsels also requested the court not to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa as their professional life may be ruined if an inquiry is conducted.
The bench then accepted the apology and called back the order directing the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate disciplinary action against the lawyers.
Comments
0 comment