"No Question Of Suppression Of Facts": Supreme Court Expunges Adverse Observations Against Lawyer By Bombay HC

The Supreme Court has expunged adverse observations made against a lawyer by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its judgment. The lawyer had appeared before the High Court in a matrimonial case.

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice SVN Bhatti, while allowing the appeal, held that the High Court was not justified in making the remarks against the appellant lawyer, particularly since the order of the Family Court was already on record.

The Court clarified that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, as had been suggested in paragraph 10 of the impugned Judgment.

Paragraph 10 of the Bombay High Court Judgment read as follows: "Strangely, the Petitioners themselves placed this Order of the Family Court on record but while arguing the matter deliberately failed to point out the same to the Court. Mr. Raut tried to conceal this Order and even upon a query made by us in this regard by pointing out the related content in the FIR, totally denied the same. This practice of counsel is reprehensible and quite unacceptable. A counsel is primarily an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court to reveal the true facts of the case. This clearly amounts to suppressio verri on the part of the counsel of the Petitioners."

"We find that the High Court was not justified in making the observations against the appellant herein, inasmuch as the order of the Family court was very much on record. As such, there could be no question of suppression of facts. We, therefore, expunge the observations made in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court," the Bench said.

Advocate Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar and AOR Amit Pai appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Varad Kilor appeared for the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Court directed the expungement of the remarks made in paragraph 10 of the High Court’s judgment. With this, the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant against the adverse remarks by the High Court.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa since 2018, had represented litigants in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3701 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court. In its judgment dismissing the writ petition, the High Court had made adverse observations against the lawyer, stating that he had failed to point out a crucial Family Court order and had attempted to mislead the court.

Challenging these remarks, the Advocate moved the Apex Court, arguing that:

1. The Family Court order in question was already part of the case record.

2. The High Court did not provide him with an opportunity to explain before passing adverse remarks.

3. The comments were unnecessary for deciding the case and could damage his professional reputation.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani & Ors. (2021), where the Court held that adverse remarks against a counsel must not be made without granting them an opportunity to defend themselves. The lawyer also highlighted his unblemished six-year career at the Bar, his legal aid work, and contributions to legislative drafting, emphasizing the potential harm such remarks could have on his professional future.

Cause Title: Bhushan Sadashiv Raut v. Priyanka Ravindra Ghatage & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 15393/2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Sneha Botwe, Pai Amit (AOR), Tathagata Dutta

Respondent: Advocates Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande

Click here to read/download the Order