The Rajasthan High expunged adverse remarks made in a Court order against an Advocate for allegedly using undisciplined language observing that he was not awarded with the responsibility to defend himself.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by the Advocate contending that his professional career has remained unblemished for more than 19 years.

The single-bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, "Looking to regret felt by the petitioner regarding his demeanor during the Court proceedings on 08.02.2024, as mentioned in para 4 of his additional affidavit dated 11.12.2024, the adverse remarks passed against him in para 9, 10 and 11 of the order dated 08.02.2024 in SB Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.548/2024 stand expunged."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sunil Samdaria while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while passing the adverse remarks against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, which would affect his future professional career. He further submitted that the petitioner, in the affidavit has submitted that from the bottom of his heart, he reiterates that he holds this Court in high esteem and expresses regret, if the Court feels and believes that the alleged demeanour of the petitioner was not above board. The Counsel referred to Supreme Court's decision in Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani and Others (2021) and in the case of Dushyant Mainali vs. Diwan Singh Bora and Another wherein it was held that before making any adverse remark, even against a lawyer, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given and the principle of natural justice is required to be followed, as nobody can be condemned unheard.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that being officer of the Court, an Advocate is not expected to be either discourteous to the Court or Judge or use intemperate language against the Judge and instance of any kind of misbehavior towards the Court cannot be tolerated.

"Maintenance of certain ethical standards is very necessary for upholding the dignity of the legal profession. As officers of the Court, Advocates should always maintain decorum in the Courtroom. An Advocate is supposed to control his emotions in the Courtroom, specially when the Judge makes a decision or passes an order. He/She should not make any faces or express disagreement or gratitude over the Court's order. Controlling emotions depicts seriousness and professionalism, which should not be limited to the four walls of the Courtroom. An Advocate is supposed to convince the Court by his/her logical arguments and reasons and not by appealing his sentiments," the Court observed.

It further stressed that Lawyers play an important part in the administration of justice and the profession itself requires the safeguarding of high moral standards.

"As an officer of the Court the overriding duty of a lawyer is to the Court, the standards of his profession and to the public. Since the main job of a lawyer is to assist the Court in dispensing justice, the members of the Bar cannot behave with doubtful scruples or strive to thrive on litigation," the Court observed.

The Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in O.P. Sharma vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein it was held that the role and status of lawyers at the beginning of sovereign and democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the nation's administration was to be governed by the rule of law.

"They were considered intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social activists amongst the downtrodden. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no special mention. Lawyers are the officers of the Court in the administration of justice. The Bench as well as the Bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in no one's interest," the Court observed.

It noted that judges and the lawyers are complementary to each other and the primary duty of the lawyer is to inform the court as to the law and facts of the case and to aid the Court to do justice by arriving at the correct conclusions. Good and strong advocacy by the counsel is necessary for the good administration of justice

The Court found the present case to be identical to Neeraj Garg (supra) wherein the Advocate was also practicing at the High Court of Uttarakhand with around 17 years standing at the Bar and certain remarks were passed against him by the High Court without affording him any opportunity of hearing. The remarks were assailed by the said counsel before the Apex Court and the same were expunged.

"Keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Garg (supra), Dushyant Mainali (supra) & Mohd Naim (supra) and looking to the averments made by the petitioner in his additional affidavit that from the bottom of his heart, he reiterates that he holds this Court in the high esteem and expresses regret, if this Court feels and believes that his alleged demeanour was not above board, the instant petition stands allowed," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Pallav Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JP:823)

Click here to read/ download Judgement