The Allahabad High Court cautioned an advocate for failing to mention that the presiding judge had previously acted as a counsel in the case before being promoted. The court emphasized that court proceedings should not be overlooked.
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned an Advocate for failing to inform the Judge that he had previously represented a party in the case before the Judge’s appointment to the Bench. Taking a lenient approach, the High Court advised the young counsel, who regularly appears in court, to exercise more caution in the future. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, on the Single-Judge Bench, remarked, “The mistake could be intentional or unintentional, but it is clear that the Court and its processes must be respected.” Advocate Manish Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate R.K. Misra represented the Respondent. During the appeal scheduled for November 11, 2024, Advocate Siddharth S Srivastava, representing Rahul Sahai (the appellants’ Counsel), mentioned that there was a request to withdraw the appeal, which the Court accepted and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Later, the Bench Secretary informed Justice Shailendra that he had been the counsel in this appeal. The Court then reviewed the records and discovered that Advocate Neeraj Agarwal had previously represented respondent No. 1, who had engaged Justice Shailendra as counsel before his elevation. Before any decisions could be made on these matters, Justice Shailendra was elevated to the Bench in February 2023. He noted that neither party had informed the Bench that he was actively advocating for respondent No. 1. The application was presented to him on October 4, 2024, and the Court instructed the Office to schedule the application with prior documents for the following day, November 11, 2024.
The brief holder for Shri Rahul Sahai, Advocate, did not inform the Court today that this case should be sent to another Bench for the withdrawal application. On 04.10.2024, there was also no mention of this, which would have led the Court to schedule the withdrawal application for that day. Since I was not made aware of this situation, I allowed the withdrawal application in Court and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, once I learned of the situation, I had to revise the order accordingly, the Bench stated.
The Bench further noted, “Members of the Bar have a greater responsibility when their actions could harm or question a judge’s reputation in the public eye, leading to claims that HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE NOW DECIDING CASES FOR THEIR CLIENTS.”
The conduct of Advocate Siddharth Srivastava, who is expected to review the records and check the list before speaking to the Court, was deemed unfair. “Whether the mistake was intentional or not, it is clear that the Court and its proceedings must not be taken lightly,” the Bench warned Advocate Srivastava, emphasizing that he is a young lawyer frequently appearing before the High Court. The Bench advised him to exercise more caution in the future. The matter will be scheduled before another Bench after receiving a nomination from The Chief Justice in the first week of December 2024.
Cause Title: Rajneesh Kumar And Others V. Santosh Kumar And Others [Case No. SECOND APPEAL No. – 626 of 2006]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Manish Kumar Nigam & Rahul Sahai
Respondent: Advocates R.K. Misra, Arvind Kumar, Kshitij Shailendra (prior to his elevation) Neeraj Agarwal
