V. Gururaj vs Sri. Sri. Vidya Sreesha Theertharu. Writ Petition 44/2021 decided on 12 January 2021.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359672/1/WP44-21-12-01-2021.pdf
Note: This is a matter where, at the instance and on the advice of client, Advocate filed a Writ Petition before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court praying that his matter which is pending before the learned single judge of the High Court be heard by the bench of the Chief Justice or any other court which is constituted by the judge hailing from a different State other than Karnataka. The Hon’ble division bench found the conduct of the petitioner highly contemptuous and dismissed the same with exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On the conduct of the counsel, the Hon’ble Court said as follows:
14. Before we part with this order, we must say something about the role of the members of the Bar. It is well settled that a member of the Bar is expected to act first as an Officer of the Court and thereafter, as the mouthpiece of his client. In this behalf, we cannot avoid temptation of what is observed in paragraph 7 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.Arvindam vs T.V. Satyapal and another (1977) 4 SCC 467. Paragraph 7 of the said case reads thus:
“7. We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High Court by a callous party. We more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to the Court a case which was disingenuous or worse. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will activate this obligation. We are constrained to make these observations and hope that the co- operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench for spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such as the one we are disposing of. Another moral of this unrighteous chain litigation is the gullible grant of ex parte orders tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A judge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial process. We must appreciate Shri Ramasesh for his young candour and correct advocacy.”
15. The Apex Court expressed displeasure about the manner in which the party concerned was able to prevail upon a lawyer to represent before the Court a case like this. In this case, we have before us a young member of the Bar who should follow what is laid down by the Apex Court. In paragraph 7 of the aforesaid decision, when the Apex Court said that it may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if the Advocates screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigations refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. We hope and trust that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has learnt a lesson and he will hereafter follow what the Apex Court expects the members of the Bar to follow.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 