The Telangana High Court recently asked the State Bar Council to take steps to teach some discipline to the counsel [Smt. Kotha Arthica v. The State Of Telangana].
Justice T Vinod Kumar remarked that it had become a regular practice of lawyers to address the Court in a loud manner to deter the judge from dealing with their cases.
“The conduct of the Counsels addressing the Court in a high decibel, of late has become a regular practice in order to deter the Court from either taking up or not taking up their cases. It is to be noted that the said conduct on the part of the Counsel which obstructs administration of justice amounts to Misconduct under Section 35 the Advocates Act has a wider import,” Justice Kumar said.
The judge added that the counsel who adopt such practices were jeopardising the harmony with the bench, along with their professional careers.
Justice T Vinod Kumar
The Court clarified that though it was not deterred by such practices or tactics, it felt necessary to place its anguish on the record to sound a caution to the lawyers.
In a post-script, it also urged the Bar Council to take steps to inculcate discipline in advocates at the time of enrollment as well as at the time of periodical renewal of the certificate of practice.
The Court made the remarks after a lawyer representing a litigant tried to address it in a “high pitched” and “intimidating” voice during the mentioning of a matter.
After having recorded the arguments of the parties, the Court proceeded to record the conduct of the counsel representing the petitioner.
The matter in question was a petition related to the election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Adibatla Municipality. The petition was filed by a ward member who had been removed as Chairperson.
Dealing with the arguments on merits, the Bench noted that the petitioner had earlier moved court twice. While the first petition had been withdrawn, the second had been dismissed as the petitioner had suppressed the fact about the earlier petition.
With regard to the present petition, the Court again found that the petitioner had failed to mention that a no-confidence motion had been moved against her, after which she had ceased to be the Chairperson.
Concluding that the petitioner was in the habit of approaching the Court without any basis without disclosing all the relevant facts, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on her.
Source Link
