These Days Litigants tend to Blame their Counsels during Trials, Rules HC

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined a growing tendency among litigants to disown statements made through their counsel, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the adjudicatory process. The Court was confronted with a plea that questioned whether a litigant can later repudiate a recorded statement by alleging lack of instructions, an issue that strikes at the very foundation of trust between the Bar, the Bench, and the litigant.

The case stemmed from a murder case in which the accused had earlier withdrawn his anticipatory bail plea before the High Court, with his counsel undertaking that he would appear before the trial court and seek regular bail. Subsequently, the accused approached the Court seeking recall of that order, contending that his previous counsel had exceeded instructions and that he had never authorised such an undertaking. The State opposed the plea, asserting that the withdrawal was voluntary, duly recorded, and could not be undone merely on a later change of stance.

The Court emphasised the centrality of trust in judicial proceedings, observing that, “The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with full authority…” It cautioned that permitting litigants to resile from such statements would render proceedings uncertain and erode the reliability of court records. Terming the petitioner’s conduct as “procedural heresy striking at the very root of the advocate-client relationship,” the Court further remarked that such attempts would effectively convert courts into a laboratory for experimental litigation, thereby undermining the justice delivery system.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the recall application, holding it to be devoid of merit and an abuse of process, and imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the petitioner.

Case Title: Ankit Rawal V.s State of Haryana

Case No.: CRM-8361-2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Gaurav Grover,

Advocate for the Respondent: Senior DAG Mahima Yashpal Singla,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com