Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court expunged adverse observations made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against an advocate, who had represented petitioners in a writ petition. The Court held that the remarks imputing professional impropriety to the advocate were unwarranted and avoidable, particularly when the alleged omission was bona fide and not an intentional attempt to mislead.
The Court set aside both the original writ order dated 6 April 2022 to the extent it contained adverse remarks and the High Court’s subsequent order dated 5 January 2024 dismissing the application for modification. The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Facts
The appellant, a practicing advocate, appeared in a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging amendments to Rule 6 of the 2018 Rules governing medical admissions. While relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, he failed to disclose that a coordinate bench of the High Court in Arushi Mahant v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 18699/2020) had upheld the constitutional validity of the same rule, and that the said judgment had not been overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench, in its final order dated 6 April 2022, recorded displeasure with the advocate’s conduct, terming it bordering on professional impropriety. It observed that he had created an impression that the earlier High Court decision had been upturned by the Supreme Court, while in fact it had not.
Aggrieved by the aspersions, the advocate filed an interlocutory application in the same writ petition seeking expunction of the remarks. The High Court dismissed this application on 5 January 2024. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the adverse remarks passed by the High Court against the advocate were justified in the facts of the case.
- Whether the omission to disclose the coordinate bench’s ruling amounted to professional impropriety or a bona fide oversight.
- Whether courts should exercise restraint before making disparaging remarks against advocates in judicial orders.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The advocate, represented by senior counsel, submitted that he tendered an unconditional apology if any mistake had occurred in presenting the case. However, he argued that the omission was entirely bona fide, since he had not been engaged in the Arushi Mahant writ proceedings and had no role in that litigation.
It was urged that the High Court’s remarks were harsh, unnecessary, and had caused reputational damage. The omission to mention the unchallenged coordinate bench decision was not deliberate but an inadvertent lapse. Therefore, the adverse observations deserved to be expunged.
Respondent’s Arguments
Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents in the Supreme Court. The case was considered ex parte.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled principle that adverse remarks against counsel must be passed with great caution. The power to criticise conduct exists but should be exercised only when absolutely warranted and supported by clear evidence of misconduct.
The Court recognised that lawyers, as officers of the court, must act fairly and disclose all material facts. However, bona fide oversights cannot be equated with deliberate impropriety. The principle of fairness requires courts to distinguish between intentional suppression and unintentional omission.
The Court emphasised that observations reflecting on a lawyer’s professional integrity can have far-reaching consequences and should not be made lightly. Such remarks, once published in a judgment, often remain on record and damage professional reputation even if later found unjustified.
Precedent Analysis
- R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 – Advocates are officers of the court and owe duties of fairness, but disciplinary measures must follow established procedure.
- State of Bihar v. Nilmani Sahu (1999) 9 SCC 211 – Judicial restraint required in making disparaging remarks against parties or counsel.
- K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1994) 4 SCC 95 – Courts should avoid harsh strictures against advocates unless absolutely unavoidable.
These precedents informed the Court’s view that the High Court’s remarks were not justified in the absence of mala fides.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the appellant was not an advocate in the Arushi Mahant case and therefore the omission to mention its status could reasonably have escaped his attention. There was no evidence of an intention to mislead.
It held: “The adverse observations made against the Advocate could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Given the bona fide nature of the omission and the absence of mala fides, the Court concluded that the remarks bordered on excess and required expunction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, expunged the adverse remarks made in the High Court’s order dated 6 April 2022, and set aside the order dated 5 January 2024 dismissing the modification application. The Court thus restored the appellant’s professional reputation and reminded High Courts to exercise caution before recording criticism of advocates.
Implications
This ruling underscores the importance of judicial restraint in making observations against advocates. It reassures the Bar that bona fide mistakes in argument will not be treated as misconduct unless mala fides are evident.
The decision preserves the delicate balance between accountability of advocates and protection of their professional dignity. It also serves as a reminder that lawyers’ reputations are integral to the justice delivery system, and casual disparagement can have disproportionate consequences.
FAQs
Q1. Can courts pass adverse remarks against lawyers for mistakes in argument?
Yes, but only when misconduct is deliberate and evident. Bona fide mistakes should not attract harsh criticism.
Q2. What safeguards exist for advocates facing adverse remarks?
They may seek expunction before the same court or approach higher courts in appeal, as in this case.
Q3. Why did the Supreme Court expunge the remarks here?
Because the omission was bona fide, the advocate was not engaged in the connected case, and no mala fide intention to mislead was proven.
