Back
Stays CAT Order That Labeled Advocate's Plea as
A division bench of the has stepped in to protect an advocate's right to argue for her client, staying a order that branded a simple plea for as and imposed a heavy fine.
The Controversial Finding
Advocate , a practitioner with two decades' experience, was representing her client Vijaypal Saini before the CAT in Jaipur. Saini, an electrician-cum-plumber, had challenged his transfer order issued by the . When the Tribunal issued notices and granted time for the respondent to file a reply, Bhati prayed for appropriate in her client's favour.
Instead of granting or refusing the request, the CAT recorded a finding of
against the advocate. It concluded that the advocate had
"tried to intimidate the court or compel it to pass the necessary
"
and imposed a cost of ₹7,000, payable to the
. The order was passed without any
or
.
Arguments Presented
In her challenge before the High Court, Bhati argued that every advocate has a duty to protect her client's interests, and a prayer for can never amount to . More fundamentally, she contended that neither the Tribunal nor any court has the competence to conclude on the part of an advocate. Only the disciplinary committee of the , after initiating valid proceedings under the , can make such a finding.
The petition further highlighted a gross violation of the , as no was provided before the adverse finding was recorded. The advocate sought that the part of the CAT order pertaining to and fine be set aside.
Court's Decision and Observations
The division bench, comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja, issued notice to the respondent and directed that the operation of Paragraph No. 4 of the CAT's order dated remain stayed. The effectively puts on hold the finding of and the fine while the petition is pending.
Key Observations
- "Meanwhile, the operation of Paragraph No. 4 of the order dated 25.08.2026 passed by the , Jaipur, in , titled , shall remain stayed." — Order of the
- The High Court's decision to grant an immediate signals its tentative acceptance of the argument that the CAT lacked to adjudicate on and violated natural justice.
Looking Ahead
The case is scheduled for further hearing on . The ultimate outcome will likely clarify the limits of tribunals' power to discipline advocates and reaffirm that only the Bar Council can initiate proceedings under the Advocates Act. For now, the offers not only to the petitioner but also sets a precedent that courts will guard against summary penalization of advocates for performing their professional duties.
