SC expunges adverse remarks made by Uttarakhand HC against advocate

New Delhi, Dec 17 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court has ordered the expunging of the adverse remarks made by a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court against an advocate.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, hearing an appeal challenging certain adverse observations made by a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court against the appellant, said: "The appellant is a lawyer by profession. He was neither appearing for any party in the matter nor was he indirectly connected."

It stressed the necessity of the courts, including the highest court of the country, to observe the principle of natural justice. "Nobody can be condemned unheard," the apex court said.

It held that "the approach of the Uttarakhand High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law".

In its impugned decision, the Uttarakhand HC had said that the false assurance extended by advocate Dushyant Manali, for the revisionist, would amount to professional misconduct.

Taking a suo moto cognisance, the high court “referred the matter to the Bar Council to draw appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate for the wrongful extension of information to the litigant due to which the revisionist had preferred the revision at a belated stage, when the revisionist faced the order passed by the executing court in pursuance to the impugned decree which has been put to challenge in the present revision.

"The Bar Council is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedures governing the disciplinary proceedings of the Bar Council as well as under the provisions of the Advocates Act," it had ordered.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said that the portion of the impugned judgment and order containing adverse remarks will stand deleted from the records.

In October this year, the top court had directed expunging the "unjustified and illegal" remarks made by a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court against an advocate.

It disapproved "the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of".

Similarly, the Supreme Court had in similar circumstances set aside all comments made by the same Uttarakhand HC judge against another practising advocate.

Source: IANS