Recently, the Allahabad High Court, in a strongly worded order delivered on July 8, 2025, denounced the repeated failure of advocates to appear in listed matters, categorising such conduct as “professional misconduct” and likening it to “bench hunting” and “forum shopping.” Justice Krishan Pahal made these observations while dismissing a bail application that had remained pending for several months despite multiple listings, with no representation on behalf of the applicant.
The matter had been listed on at least five prior occasions, 31.01.2024, 15.02.2024, 01.03.2024, 06.03.2025, and 10.04.2025, yet counsel for the applicant remained consistently absent, including on the final hearing date when the revised list was called.
The Court noted that the trial had progressed substantially, with the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 already recorded. Consequently, it found that “by the efflux of time,” the bail application had become infructuous.
Expressing disapproval of the conduct of legal representatives who fail to appear without explanation, the Court held, “Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.”
While relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, Justice Pahal reiterated that courts must refrain from granting adjournments mechanically. He noted that the judiciary must remain vigilant in curbing delays and “usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.”
Importantly, the Court stressed that mere pendency of a bail plea does not vest a right in the applicant to prolong proceedings and stated, “The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of the High Court.”
Taking a broader view of judicial resource constraints, the Court lamented that time spent on such matters detracts from cases with genuine urgency and held, “Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law.”
Further, the Court quoted a Division Bench decision in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, which emphasised the dual duty of advocates to both court and client, and the institutional harm caused by “frivolous and bogus litigation.”
The Court had earlier observed that “The time of the Court is precious for the reason that it is public's time and must be utilised for adjudicating matters which have substance and need to be decided at the earliest. The arm of justice must reach the aggrieved person dispensing justice speedily.”
“ If time of the Court is consumed, and that too, a lion's share, by frivolous and bogus litigation, it is bound to take away the time which could have been utilised for really needy litigants. The time has come when the learned members of the Bar should rise to the occasion and discourage frivolous and bogus litigation by telling their clients that they would not be a party to such kind of litigation. Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real litigants from the shower of justice at a time when he really needs it”, added the Court.
Concluding that the applicant had shown a lack of interest in pursuing the matter, the Court held that the application amounted to a misuse of judicial process and rejected the bail plea. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for immediate compliance.
Case Title: Smt. Pooja Vs. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 34926 of 2023
Coram: Justice Krishan Pahal
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Anil Kumar Shukla
Advocate for Respondent: G.A.,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
