Advocate Not A Mouthpiece Of Client, Should Refrain From Accepting Frivolous Briefs: Allahabad High Court
While refraining from imposing cost on a young advocate, the Allahabad High Court cautioned that advocates are not mere mouthpieces of their clients and they must refrain from accepting frivolous briefs which waste the judicial time.Taking a lenient view as the counsel got enrolled only in 2024, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,“..the learned Counsel should understand that although...
While refraining from imposing cost on a young advocate, the Allahabad High Court cautioned that advocates are not mere mouthpieces of their clients and they must refrain from accepting frivolous briefs which waste the judicial time.
Taking a lenient view as the counsel got enrolled only in 2024, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,
“..the learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief.”
Petitioner approached the High Court against the notice issued by the DRT Registrar calling upon the opposite party to appear before it and show cause as to why the Securitisation Application should not be allowed or the S.A. will be heard and decided ex-parte. It was argued that issuing notice was solely within the domain of the Presiding Officer and the same could not have been done by the Registrar.
The Court noted that the petition before the High Court was filed on 18th December, 2025, whereas the matter had already been listed before the Presiding Officer on 1st December, 2025. Though the Court suggested that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner since the matter had already been listed, it was contended that even when no prejudice was caused, the notice could be challenged before the Court.
Though the Court suggested to the counsel for petitioner to approach DRT instead of pursuing the petition before the High Court, the Counsel insisted on arguing the petition.
Dismissing the petition on grounds that the Registrar of the DRT had the power to issue notice to the opposite party, the Court observed,
“It is said that the Bar and the Bench are the wheels of the same chariot. For fast and smooth running of the chariot, it is necessary that all the wheels should move forward at the same pace and one set of wheels should not try to put brakes on the other set of wheels of the chariot.”
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7466 of 2025]