"Shocking Revelation": Bombay HC Slams Advocate for Courtroom Deception, Refers to Bar Council

In a stern rebuke that underscores the sanctity of courtroom proceedings, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred advocate S.D. Chande to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for professional misconduct . The division bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta acted after uncovering that Chande had appeared for multiple respondents without authority, relying on a forged document, and continued to mislead the court even after exposure. This came amid a writ petition by Pushpa Gupta seeking removal of unauthorized structures on leased government land.

Encroachment Dispute Turns into Ethics Firestorm

Pushpa, wife of Sanjay Gupta, filed Writ Petition No. 7236 of 2024 against the State of Maharashtra and others, including the Nagpur Improvement Trust (respondent no. 2) and private parties (respondents 5 to 11). She alleged illegal encroachments on a plot leased to her, with possession never handed over. The case escalated when, on March 30, 2026 , Chande claimed to represent respondents 5 to 11 and presented a forged decree to assert long-term possession.

Previous orders on March 30 and April 2, 2026 , issued contempt notices against these respondents for fraud on the court . On April 9, 2026 —marked by respondents 5, 7 to 11 appearing in person and depositing amounts as directed—Chande dropped a bombshell: his vakalatnama was only for respondent no. 7. Yet, he had argued for all, influencing court orders.

Petitioner's Push vs. Respondents' Evasive Tactics

Petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar with P.A. Gupta , pressed for demolition of the structures, highlighting the lease and non-delivery of possession. The Nagpur Improvement Trust , via S.M. Puranik , committed to removal within six weeks.

Chande's side unraveled: he first defended all private respondents with a dubious decree from suits no. 177/1975 (dismissed) and 285/1975. Even on the hearing day, he argued it was a "common judgment" based on para 14's procedural note—despite records showing separate judgments. The bench rejected this as "misleading," noting prior overlooked incidents of his conduct.

State counsel A.B. Badar and others for respondents 2 and 3 stayed neutral on the merits but complied with deposit orders.

Drawing the Line on Advocate Accountability

The bench invoked Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. (2025 (6) SCC 416), quoting its warnings on advocates' role: “The matter assumes serious concern when the Advocates who are the officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in the ill-motivated litigations... No professional much less legal professional, is immuned from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.” This precedent reinforced that signing vakalatnamas demands responsibility, amplifying the gravity of Chande's "mischief."

The court distinguished procedural notes from common judgments, clarifying no merger occurred. Reports of similar past oversights with Chande were flagged for the Bar Council.

Key Observations

"Thus, it appears that Mr. Chande has mislead the Court and the parties. The mischief played by Mr. Chande amounts to misconduct. We accordingly refer the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for taking suitable action against Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate." (Para 2)

"The misconduct is, therefore, writ large. This is not the first instance in which the conduct of Mr. Chande has been found objectionable. On multiple prior occasions, similar incidents have been overlooked by the Court." (Para 7)

"People repose immense faith in Judiciary, and the Bar being an integral part of the Justice delivery system, has been assigned a very crucial role..." (Quoting Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh, Para 3)

Relief Granted, Contempt Looms, Bar Council Urged to Act Swiftly

The petition succeeded on merits: Nagpur Improvement Trust 's assurance led to disposal, with structures to be razed in six weeks—redressing Pushpa's grievance.

Contempt proceedings against respondents 5 to 11 continue, listed May 5, 2026 . Affected parties can seek modifications or sue Chande for unauthorized representation. The Bar Council must decide within four months, with copies of key orders forwarded.

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for the bar, potentially deterring unauthorized appearances and reinforcing ethical duties. As media reports note, it's a "shocking misconduct" case that could reshape accountability in Maharashtra's legal circles.