Back
of Court Orders: Refers Advocate to Bar Council
The has taken a strong stance against advocate for willfully disobeying court orders, refusing to accept his and referring the matter to the for stern disciplinary action. A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, hearing a writ petition related to a cyber crime investigation, expressed concern over a rising trend of advocates treating court orders lightly.
Denied: The Court's Firm Stance
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by Dhiren Sushil Roy concerning the investigation of CR No.211 of 2024 registered at the . The court had on directed all regional heads of respondent banks to appear personally. , advocate on record for (Respondent No.5), failed to comply with the court's direction. Instead of appearing personally, he offered an excuse of having a matter before the Aurangabad bench and later sent a proxy counsel informing the court of "personal difficulty." Furthermore, the bank sent an official from its legal department instead of a regional manager as ordered.
Senior advocate , representing Kotak Bank, sought to the adverse observations made against Lalsare in the order and requested that his case not be referred to the Bar Council. He argued that Lalsare be pardoned for his conduct. However, the court was not persuaded. The bench noted that courts have often been "large hearted" in forgiving such acts, but this had only emboldened advocates to disregard court orders.
A Rising Trend of Disobedience
The court emphasized the imperative to arrest the . It observed that the perception among some advocates that they can flout orders and get away with an apology must be eradicated. The judges remarked that even judicial officers have been seen misbehaving in court, indicating a broader problem. Therefore, stern action was necessary to send a strong message.
Key Observations
The bench made several pointed observations:
"In the recent times we have observed a rising trend amongst Advocates to willfully and disregard or blatantly disobey the Orders of this Court or to mislead it and thereby ."
"It appears to us that, the Advocates carry a perception that they could willfully disregard or disobey the Court orders and get away with it by offering some excuse or the other and if caught and faced with the ire of the Court, tender an either by themselves or through a Senior Counsel."
"It is high time this has to be stopped, as we see both Advocates, their clients, officers of the governmental institutions and even public at large taking orders lightly."
"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."
"We now place the onus and responsibility on the to help to weed out such Advocates by taking very stern action against them to send out a strong message to its members and to uphold the dignity of the Court."
Court's Decision and Implications
The court refused to the observations against Lalsare and rejected the request for . It directed that the affidavit of filed by advocate (who had also been cited for misconduct) be taken on record. The case has been adjourned to for further proceedings. The decision serves as a stern warning to the legal fraternity about the consequences of disregarding court directives and underscores the judiciary's resolve to curb the growing culture of non-compliance.
