Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., expressed that an advocate as an Officer of the Court is under an obligation to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. There is no room for arrogance and there is no license to intimidate the Court, make reckless accusations and allegations against a Judge and pollute the very fountain of justice.
The applicant had circulated the matter for urgent listing and when the Court raised a query about whether there was any urgency as to take the matter out of turn, the applicant’s counsel, Anjali Patil went totally off the tangent and made allegations that this Court was giving priority to certain matters and to certain advocates and this insinuated that the Court was not fair and biased.
Further, it was also complained by the counsel that the litigants do not get justice from the Court.
She threatened that she would lodge a complaint before the Chief Justice about conduct of this Court and further sought time to place the facts on record on an affidavit.
“Advocate has every right to protect interest of his/her clients. An advocate is answerable to his/her clients and the frustration of an advocate when the matter gets adjourned for whatsoever reason or does not reach the board is understandable.”
High Court remarked that, Anjali Patil, Advocate for the applicant grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when she made imputations of partiality and unfairness in the open Court. Her conduct was highly unprofessional and unbecoming of an advocate.
Lastly, the Bench stated that,
“It has to be borne in mind that casting scurrilous aspersions not only has the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the judiciary but also has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.”
[Dipak Kalicharan Kanojiya v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 872, decided on 19-4-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Ms. Anjali Patil i/b. Nouman Shaikh for the Applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State.