The Delhi High Court recently, through one of its orders has taken strict action against the browbeating of Junior Counsels. The Court has stated it as 'impermissible.'

It dismissed a contempt petition against a Junior Counsel for an alleged non-compliance of orders passed by the Court and also imposed fine. 

The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in M/S CNA EXPORTS (P) LTD v/s MANSI SHARMA & ORS.

The Petitioner herein had filed a contempt petition seeking compliance of certain orders passed by the Court in Sept and Dec 2019.

He, in the filed petition, stated that he had chosen to make a Junior Counsel who appeared on behalf of one Mrs. Sushma Ravidas as one of the contemnors.

The challenge before the Court was to examine the legality and validity of the alleged Powers of Attorney in favor of one Sudarshan Kumar on behalf of Mrs. Sushma Ravidas.

The Petitioner contended before the Court that the Junior Counsel was to be arrayed as a Contemnor No. 1 only in the event. The Court to this opined that the onus for the compliance of its orders was on the shoulders of the Advocate and not the client.

The Petitioner further stated that the Junior Counsel was arrayed because as many as 5 e-mails were sent to her regarding the issue of compliance.

As per the petitioner, she did “not even bother to reply to any of these 5 e-mails” and at one occasion “had the audacity to inform the Counsel appearing for the applicant that there is no intention whatsoever” to file the original Powers-of-Attorney since there was no such order to this effect from the Court.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined that the issue of legality and validity of the Powers of Attorneys had to be adjudicated in the main case.

The Court thus remarked that making allegations against a Junior Counsel was "completely uncalled for and in bad taste".

The Court added:

The same would in effect result in `browbeating’ Junior Counsel which is impermissible.. leveling allegations and writing of repeated e-mails, in a manner so as to create a threat to junior counsel cannot be permitted.

The Court stated that the question as to whether there was compliance with the earlier orders was to be adjudicated by the Court.

It noted that the remedy for alleged non-compliance of orders was to approach the Court rather than to address e-mails to the counsel for the opposing side and make allegations against them.

The Court condemned the usage of harsh language and said it is “audacity of the Counsel."

The Court observed,

“Such language crosses the boundaries of legal pleadings especially against Counsels who act in their professional capacity.”

The Court thus accordingly dismissed the contempt and imposed the costs of ₹1,00,000/- to be paid to the Junior Counsel by the Petitioner in the Contempt Petition.

The judgement has been delivered by Justice Prathiba M Singh on 27-01-2020.

Read the Judgement:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :