“You Shall Not Identify With The Client”: Kerala High Court Expunges Harsh Remarks Against Young Advocate To Protect His Future

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by an advocate who had represented the petitioner in an earlier writ petition. He did not challenge the decision on the issues between the parties but sought deletion of observations suggesting that he had deliberately attested an affidavit despite knowing that it contained false statements.

A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed: “It is imbued by the afore epochal precepts, that every young entrant to the Bar invariably is told the commandment that you shall not identify with the client.”

“No doubt, the judgment speaks in a harsh tone; but we are of the firm opinion that it was not intended to be caustic to the appellant; but only to caution him and remind him of his professional duties, so that he will be more careful in future”, the Bench added.

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for the appellant. Advocate Mohan Jacob George appeared for Federal Bank, while Senior Government Pleader P.M. Rafeek represented the State authorities.

Background

The appellant argued that the Single Judge’s conclusion that he had deliberately attested an affidavit while knowing its contents to be false was unsupported and would permanently prejudice his professional career.

He submitted that an advocate could not be held responsible for the truth of every statement made by a client in an affidavit. He relied on Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra (2026) and sought expunction of all findings made against him.

Federal Bank did not offer comments on the grievance raised by the advocate and left the issue to the Division Bench. It nevertheless requested that the Single Judge’s judgment should not be disturbed on its merits.

Court’s Observations

Advocates Must Make Faithful Disclosures

The Court observed that advocates were expected to make faithful disclosures when they were aware of the relevant facts. It clarified, however, that counsel ordinarily acted upon their clients’ instructions, documents and sworn pleadings.

The Bench stated: “The learned Single Judge has found the appellant to have fallen short of his professional requirements, in ‘not bringing the truth’ to its notice; but, it must be remembered that, learned counsel can act and plead solely on the instructions of clients, edificed on documents supplied and averments in affidavits sworn to by them. Undoubtedly, if there is a reason for a Counsel to be suspicious of deleterious tendencies on the part of his client, he must exercise circumspection and caution; and make fair disclosures and submissions before Court, behooving the high standards expected of him as its officer.”

The Court observed that if the appellant genuinely had no opportunity to verify the truth of his client’s averments, no blame could be cast upon him. At the same time, the Bench stated that advocates must examine documents provided by clients and assess their contents before filing them in court.

Counsel Cannot Become Client’s Alter Ego

The Court observed that responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of a judgment did not rest only upon the judge but upon the justice-delivery system as a whole, within which advocates occupied a position of trust.

The Bench underscored: “Inevitably, if not always, the responsibility of a judgment to be accurate is not merely on the judge concerned, but on the system itself - of which learned Counsel enjoy a position of trust. Axiomatically, to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery mechanisms, their actions have to be at the acme of certitude, credibility, probity, righteousness and rectitude. It is the fundamental imperative that an Advocate must zealously and fearlessly protect the client’s interests; but through fair means, without being their personal extension or alter ego.”

Referring to the Bar Council of India Rules governing professional conduct, the Court stated that advocates must conduct themselves as officers of the court and use their best efforts to prevent clients from adopting sharp or unfair practices. The Bench added that an advocate was not merely the client’s mouthpiece and had to exercise independent professional judgment.

Remarks Were Intended As Mentorship

The Court interpreted the Single Judge’s observations as an attempt to mentor and caution the appellant, rather than to make a caustic attack upon him.

The Bench observed: “When viewed from the above perspective, the intent of the learned Single Judge was perspicuously to mentor the appellant, since he is a young member of the Bar, with a future ahead. No doubt, the judgment speaks in a harsh tone; but we are of the firm opinion that it was not intended to be caustic to the appellant; but only to caution him and remind him of his professional duties, so that he will be more careful in future.”

The Court nevertheless held that the adverse portion could not be allowed to remain because of its potential unintended consequences for the appellant’s future.

Conclusion

The Court allowed the appeal only to the extent of expunging the portion of paragraph 5 of the Single Judge’s judgment beginning with the words “It is well settled” and continuing until the paragraph’s conclusion.

Explaining the relief, the Bench stated: “With that said, it would not be proper for us to leave that portion of the judgment which appears to speak against the appellant, without being interfered with, for the singular reason that it will certainly have an unintended impact on his future.”

The Court clarified that the Single Judge’s judgment would remain unaltered in every other respect.

Cause Title: Sadiqali M. v. Federal Bank and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:78810)

Appearances

Appellant: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak; Advocates Manas P. Hameed and Ipsita Ojal

Respondents: Senior Government Pleader P.M. Rafeek; Advocate Mohan Jacob George

Click here to read/download Judgment