Recently, the Supreme Court addressed a matter involving the Uttrakhand High Court’s observations against an advocate. The Court held that the High Court’s remarks regarding the appellant, a lawyer by profession were unsustainable due to the failure to grant him an opportunity to be heard. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to natural justice principles particularly when making adverse remarks against legal professionals.
The appellant, a lawyer, appealed against certain adverse observations made by the learned Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court. The appellant had no connection to the case, nor was he appearing for any party. The High Court had made disapproving remarks regarding the appellant in a matter where he was neither involved nor had any indirect relation. Similar disapprovals were also recorded in prior cases involving the same Judge, including the 2021 case of Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and in Siddhartha Singh Vs. Assistant Collector (2024).
The appellant contended that the remarks made by the High Court against him were baseless, as he was neither representing any party nor involved in the matter. The counsel argued that the appellant was not given an opportunity to present his side before such observations were made. This action violated the principles of natural justice, which mandate a fair hearing.
The Apex Court, after considering the matter, emphasized that even the highest courts of the country are bound by the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that no individual, including an advocate, should be condemned without being heard. The remarks made against the appellant were viewed as unsustainable in law since he was not provided with a fair chance to present his defence.
In its detailed observation, the Court highlighted that the High Court’s decision to make such adverse remarks and proceed with disciplinary referrals against the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Dushyant Mainali, was not in accordance with due process. The Court further expunged the following part of the High Court's judgment, “All these statements are per se apparently false because there is no prior pending revision... This false assurance extended by counsel for the revisionist... would amount to professional misconduct... Bar Council is directed to proceed strictly... and conclude the proceedings within six months from today”. The Supreme Court noted that such remarks were not only unjustified but also inappropriate without providing the appellant a chance to be heard.
The appeal was allowed, and the Top Court ordered the expunging of the mentioned observations from the records. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring fairness in the justice delivery process. The appeal was disposed of with the specific direction for the removal of the unsubstantiated remarks against the appellant and a reminder of the necessity of granting an opportunity for a fair hearing.
Case Title: Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr.
Case No.: SLP(C) No.15191 of 2022
Order Date: 25.11.2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Vinod Kumar Shukla, Abhaya Nath Das, Sugam Mishra, Monica Goel, Kishor Kumar Mishra, Aditya Mishra, Barnali Basak, Hukum Deo Prasad, Satish Kumar (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Bankey Bihari (AOR)
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
