Adverse remarks against advocates must comply with natural justice principles, necessitating an opportunity for the advocate to be heard before such remarks are recorded.

Order :

1. By way of filing of this petition, the following prayer has been made by the petitioner:

"In conspectus of aforesaid state of facts it is prayed to Honourable Court to allow the present petition expunging the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner advocate in Para 9, 10 and 11 of the order dated 8.2.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.548/2024 (Surendra Pal Singh Sahni Vs State of Rajasthan and Others)

Award cost of the petition and pass any other appropriate order which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Advocate practicing before this Court for last more than 19 years and during this period, his professional career remained unblemished and there was no complaint whatsoever against him. Counsel submits that at the time of arguments in the case of Surendra Pal Singh Sahni vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, before this Court in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.548/2024, certain adverse remarks have been passed by this Court while passing the order dated 08.02.2024 in para Nos.9, 10 and 11. Counsel submits that before passing the aforesaid adverse remarks against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, which would affect his future professional career. Counsel submits that the petitioner being a professional and Officer of this Court has highest regard to the majesty of the law and he cannot even think to disobey and disregard the Court by any act of indiscipline or misbehavior. Counsel submits that an additional affidavit has been submitted on 11.12.2024, wherein the petitioner has submitted that from the bottom of his heart, he reiterates that he holds this Court in high esteem and expresses regret, if this Hon'ble Court feels and believes that the alleged demeanour of the petitioner was not above board.

3. Counsel submits that even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani and Others reported in 2021 (9) SCC 92 and in the case of Dushyant Mainali vs. Diwan Singh Bora and Another [SLP(C) No.15191/2022] has held that before making any adverse remark, even against a lawyer, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given and the principle of natural justice is required to be followed, as nobody can be condemned unheard. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the adverse remarks passed against the petitioner in para nos.9, 10 and 11 be expunged in the interest of professional career of the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP vs. Mohd. Naim , reported in AIR 1964 SC 703.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the record as well as the order dated 08.02.2024 indicate that while hearing the arguments of the said petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court felt that the demeanour of the petitioner was not proper and that is why it was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that the petitioner misbehaved with the Court and used undisciplined language/words and failed to maintain the discipline of the Court and left the desk from the Court after showing tantrums and attitude. On the basis of the aforesaid observations and taking note of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, such alleged conduct of the petitioner was ordered to be kept on the record.

7. Advocates are officers of the Court first and they are the mouth speaker of their clients after that. Being officer of the Court, an Advocate is not expected to be either discourteous to the Court or Judge or use intemperate language against the Judge. Instance of any kind of misbehavior towards the