The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has taken a definitive stance against the growing trend of legal practitioners ignoring judicial directives, refusing to expunge critical remarks made against an advocate who repeatedly flouted orders in a sensitive cyber fraud investigation. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, signals a hardening judicial attitude toward advocates who attempt to circumvent accountability through routine apologies after failing to comply with court proceedings.

The matter arises from Writ Petition No. 3093 of 2025, initiated by Dhiren Sushil Roy, a victim of a cyber fraud case involving the loss of significant life savings, currently registered as CR No. 211 of 2024 at the Cyber Police Station in Mumbai. The court's refusal to grant relief to Advocate Mandar Lalsare, who had previously faced judicial scrutiny for evasive conduct while representing Kotak Bank, serves as a warning that the court will no longer tolerate the casual treatment of its mandates.

Oversight and Enforcement in Financial Fraud During the proceedings, the court focused on ensuring the cooperation of various financial institutions in the ongoing cyber fraud investigation. Regional heads and designated officers from ICICI Bank, Kotak Bank, and other financial institutions were personally present in the courtroom to provide assurances of compliance. The bench directed these officials to appear before the investigating officer at the Cyber Police Station to facilitate the recording of statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The judicial intervention became necessary as the investigation faced delays attributed to a lack of cooperation from bank representatives. By requiring personal appearances and the submission of full records, the court aims to expedite the process for the petitioner. The bank officers have committed to appearing before the investigating officer on designated dates, ensuring that the necessary documentation for the probe is presented without further obstruction.

Stance on Professional Standards The refusal to expunge remarks against Advocate Lalsare stems from a broader frustration with the current state of legal practice before the High Court. Despite a senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent bank to argue for the removal of adverse observations and to request that the matter not be referred to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the bench remained steadfast. The judges highlighted that, historically, courts have been lenient toward lawyers who, when faced with the ire of the bench, offer apologies for non-compliance. However, the bench asserted that this leniency has inadvertently emboldened a culture of defiance.

In its order, the court observed: "In recent times we have observed a rising trend amongst Advocates to willfully and contumaciously disregard or blatantly disobey the Orders of this Court or to mislead it and thereby undermine the Authority of the Court." This observation underscores the bench's commitment to maintaining the decorum and effectiveness of judicial proceedings. The judges noted that the perception among some lawyers that they can disregard court orders and escape consequences through simple apologies is no longer acceptable.

The bench further elaborated on the necessity of this firm approach, stating: "We find it imperative to arrest this decline and prevent the authority of Courts being trampled by unscrupulous litigants and Advocates who have scant respect for the Court proceedings."

Institutional Accountability for Counsel As part of its efforts to restore professional discipline, the High Court has placed the responsibility squarely on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The bench has directed the regulatory body to take stern action against the erring advocate, emphasizing that such measures are required to send a clear message to the legal fraternity. By refusing to shield the advocate from the consequences of his actions, the court has signaled that the dignity of judicial authority supersedes personal professional reputations or the convenience of litigants.

The court's decision also addressed the conduct of other legal professionals involved in the matter. While certain apologies, such as those tendered by Advocate Atul Mishra, were accepted by the court, the distinction made by the bench in the case of Lalsare illustrates a shift toward a more rigorous application of procedural discipline. The court underscored that the responsibility of the Bar Council is to act as a gatekeeper against such behavior, ensuring that those who lack respect for court orders are properly addressed.

The matter is currently scheduled for further hearing on 14th October 2026. This upcoming session is expected to review the progress of the investigations and ensure that the directives issued to the banking institutions have been fulfilled. As it stands, the case remains a significant marker of the Bombay High Court’s intent to enforce strict compliance with its orders, both from governmental institutions and from the legal practitioners representing them. The judiciary’s focus on the accountability of bank officers and their counsel in the cyber fraud case remains the primary objective, with the court monitoring the situation to ensure that the investigation into the loss of the petitioner's funds proceeds without further administrative or legal hindrance.