AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—When this matter was called yesterday, no advocate appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner''s representative was present
in court and he represented that the Advocates were boycotting the court. We directed the matter to be posted to-day for dismissal.
When the matter is called to-day, senior counsel, represented that he wanted to avoid unruly scenes in the court and so, he abstained from
court. If that is so, it is very unfortunate for the entire Administration of Justice.
In our opinion, it is hardly a satisfactory explanation for remaining absent from court. If a few advocates decide to boycott the courts, it is not
necessary for the others to follow suit. They ought to have attended the court and if they had been prevented from carrying out their duties within
the court, stern action would have been taken by the court against such persons.
It is high time that the members of the noble profession realised their responsibilities and in particular their paramount duty to their respective
clients. We notice with anguish that boycotting courts has become a regular feature in this State and almost throughout the year, one section or the
other of the members of the Bar abstain from courts. It is with a ching heart, we find that the advocates declare and proclaim solidarity only in the
matter of boycotting courts though not in other matters in which solidarity is necessary. In fact in Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Sairam and Others, the
Supreme Court has ruled that even if an association decides to abstain from court for a just cause, the individual members of that association are
free to appear without let, fear or hindrance or any other coercive step.
In the matter of In The Matter of P. An Advocate, , the court said that a wilful and callous disregard for the interests of the client may, in a
proper case, be characterised as conduct unbefitting an advocate. In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra, Bombay
and Others, , the Supreme Court said that ''an advocate stands in loco parentis towards the litigants'' and that counsel''s paramount duty is to the
client. The court observed:
For an advocate to act towards his client otherwise than with utmost good faith is unprofessional. When an advocate is entrusted with a brief, he is
expected to follow norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust.
In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary Vs. State (Delhi Administration), , the court held that an advocate accepting brief in a criminal case must attend trial
from day-to-day and if he fails so to attend, he will be committing breach of his professional duty. In Salil Dutta Vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., ,
the Supreme Court held that the advocate is the agent of the party. In J.S. Jadhav Vs. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf and others, , the court
quoted the following passage in its earlier judgment in Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar and Others, :
The Bar is not a private guild, like that of barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers, but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public
justice and pro bono publice service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practice law is based on three assumptions: (1) There is a socially useful
function for the lawyer to perform, (2) The lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function, and (3) His performance as a
professional person is regulated by himself and more formally, by the profession as a whole. The central function that the legal profession must
perform is nothing less than the administration of justice (""The Practice of Law is a Public Utility"" - ""The Lawyer, the Public and Professional
Responsibility"" by F. Ramond Marks et al - Chicago American Bar Foundation, 1972 pp. 288-289).
In State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and others, , the court said that the relationship between the lawyer and his
client is one of trust and confidence and that the lawyer is a dignified, responsible spokesman of his client.
In our opinion no advocate has a right to abstain from court without first returning the briefs to his clients and refunding the received from them.
It is well known that several clients are paying through their nose by borrowing heavily to their advocates and it is a matter of life and death for
them. Failure of a lawyer to attend to his cases in court would not only be breach of contract and breach of trust but also professional misconduct.
If courts choose to remain silent witnesses and help such lawyers to stay away from courts by adjourning the cases, it will not only be a case of
failure to exercise jurisdiction and dereliction of duty but also abatement of the unlawful and unethical activities of the advocates.
In this case, the learned senior counsel has now expressed unconditional apology for his absence yesterday. Having regard to the facts of the
case which has been pending for over a decade, we have permitted the counsel to argue the matter. Accordingly, the cases are heard to-day.