Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, being Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022, in which the appellant, an advocate named Siddharth, represented the writ petitioners. While disposing of that writ petition by final order dated 6 April 2022, the Division Bench made adverse observations in paragraph 7 about the appellant's professional conduct. The High Court recorded displeasure that the appellant, while relying on the Supreme Court decision in Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, had failed to disclose that the coordinate bench decision dated 15 December 2020 in Writ Petition No. 18699/2020, which upheld the constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 of the Rules of 2018, had not been challenged. The High Court observed that the appellant had given an impression that the entire judgment of 15 December 2020, including the decision in Arushi Mahant and others v. State of M.P., had been upturned by the Apex Court, and only after the State counsel pointed out the omission did the court learn the true position. The High Court therefore recorded its displeasure about the appellant's conduct, which cast an aspersion on his professional integrity. Aggrieved, the appellant sought expunction of those adverse remarks and also filed an interlocutory application, IA No. 17812 of 2023, in the same writ petition seeking modification of the final order to remove the adverse remarks. The High Court dismissed that application on 5 January 2024. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, which were converted into civil appeals. Before the Supreme Court, learned senior counsel for the appellant tendered an unconditional apology for any mistake committed during the High Court proceedings. He submitted, without prejudice, that the appellant had not been engaged or involved as counsel in the connected Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 titled Arushi Mahant & Ors. v. Medical Education Department & Ors., and therefore the omission may have bona fide escaped his notice. He urged that the appellant had no intention to mislead the court and sought expunction. No one entered appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service. The Supreme Court considered the submissions and the impugned paragraph, and observed that the adverse remarks against the advocate could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances. The Court accepted that since the appellant was not engaged in the Arushi Mahant case, the possibility that the fact regarding the decision in Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 not having been challenged further may have bona fide escaped his notice could not be ruled out. In this backdrop, the Court held that the adverse observations made in paragraph 7 of the impugned order deserved to be expunged insofar as they related to the appellant. Consequently, the Court also quashed and set aside the order dated 5 January 2024 passed by the High Court dismissing IA No. 17812 of 2023. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, and pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Legal Ethics - Professional Conduct of Advocates - Expunction of Adverse Remarks - Not mentioned - The High Court recorded displeasure about counsel's conduct for failing to disclose that the coordinate bench decision upholding validity of amended Rule 6 was not challenged; the Supreme Court noted counsel was not engaged in the connected writ petition and the omission could have bona fide escaped notice; Held that adverse remarks against counsel should be avoided when omission was bona fide and not intended to mislead, and expunged them (Paras 7-12). B) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Application - Modification of Final Order - Not mentioned - The High Court dismissed the appellant's IA No. 17812 of 2023 seeking modification of final order to expunge adverse remarks; the Supreme Court, after expunging the remarks, quashed the order dated 5 January 2024 as consequential; Held that once adverse remarks are expunged, the order refusing modification must be set aside (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether adverse observations made by the High Court against the appellant advocate in the final order dated 6 April 2022 were unwarranted and should be expunged; whether the order dated 5 January 2024 dismissing the modification application should be quashed.
Final Decision
Appeals disposed of; adverse observations in Para 7 of High Court order dated 6 April 2022 expunged insofar as they relate to the appellant; High Court order dated 5 January 2024 dismissing IA No. 17812 of 2023 quashed and set aside; pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Adverse judicial observations against counsel should be avoided when omission is bona fide
- counsel was not engaged in connected matter
- unconditional apology and absence of intention to mislead justify expunction
- subsequent order refusing modification must be set aside once remarks expunged
