Advocates Should Not Accept Frivolous Briefs Of Clients: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Young Lawyer For Wasting Its "Precious" Time
Observations made while dismissing Article 227 challenge to DRT proceedings
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court observed that an Advocate is not a mere mouthpiece of his client.
In case a client insists for filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief, the Court said.
The observation was made while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging a notice issued by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow in a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Accordingly, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi categorically observed, “…it is necessary to put it on record that there are 207 matters listed today in the list of fresh petitions, 128 matters are listed in the additional list and 51 matters are listed in the daily IA list. The Court repetitively requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to refrain from wasting the time of the Court and to raise his pleas before the A227 No. 7466 of 2025 10 DRT where the SA is pending but due to his insistence, the Court had to decide the petition by this detailed judgment, which has resulted in unwarranted wastage of the precious time of the Court, which could have been utilized for deciding some other matter.
Noting that the Advocate had been enrolled with the Bar Council only in the year 2024, the bench further said, “Normally the Court would have imposed costs for wasting time of the Court but keeping in view that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a young and inexperienced Counsel, who got enrolled with the Bar Council only in the year 2024, the Court is taking a lenient view and is desisting from imposing costs on the petitioner, but the learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief”.
Advocates Suryansh Kumar Arora and Noel Victor appeared for the petitioner.
In the matter, the petitioner had questioned the jurisdiction of the Registrar to issue notice in a securitisation application, contending that such authority vested only with the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The High Court, however, rejected the challenge, holding that under the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the Registrar is empowered to scrutinise applications, fix dates, and issue notices, subject to the directions of the Presiding Officer.
The Court noted that the objection raised was purely technical in nature and did not disclose any grave injustice or failure of justice warranting interference under Article 227.
It further observed that issuance of notice was a necessary procedural step and that even otherwise, the grievance had been rendered academic, as the matter had already been placed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT before the High Court took up the petition.
The Bench reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not meant to correct every procedural grievance or technical objection, and that unnecessary litigation only adds to the burden on courts already dealing with an overwhelming docket.
Upon finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it at the admission stage.
Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:3855]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Suryansh Kumar Arora, Noel Victor Advocates