“Shakes Conscience”: Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry After Litigant Contests Vakalatnama, Says He Never Authorised Advocate To Appear

The Allahabad High Court has ordered an inquiry into a litigant's allegation that an advocate had appeared on his behalf without authority, observing that the serious allegations made in the review application had "shaken the conscience of the Court."

Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the order while hearing a review application filed by Shiv Shankar Singh, who had been arrayed as Respondent No. 6 in an earlier writ petition concerning the management of Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Ghazipur.

Singh contended that he had neither executed any Vakalatnama nor authorised the advocate who appeared on his behalf in the writ proceedings and filed a caveat, despite which the writ petition was disposed of after hearing that advocate.

Observing that the allegations warranted closer scrutiny, the Court said:

"A perusal of the signature in the Vakalatnama filed along with the review application and the caveat filed earlier, shows that they are different. However, since serious allegations have been made, which has shaken the conscience of the Court, this Court finds it necessary that a personal affidavit of Bhola Singh may also be called for, and the record along with the Vakalatnama in the following writ petitions may be summoned to examine the signatures of Sri Shivshankar Singh (Yadav)."

Petitioners had challenged an order by which it was proposed that the society be changed into a trust. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file their objections within 48 hours. The review applicant, who was Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, thereafter filed an intra-court appeal on the ground that he had neither authorised any counsel to appear on his behalf before the writ Court nor executed any Vakalatnama, despite which a counsel appeared for him and the writ petition came to be disposed of. He also contended that the statement made before the writ Court that the last undisputed elections were held in 2009 was factually incorrect.

The special appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to take steps in accordance with law. Thereafter, he filed a review application against the writ order through a different counsel, from the one who had appeared before the writ Court, with an endorsement on the vakalatnama stating that no counsel appeared for him before the writ court.

The Court verified the signatures of the review applicant on the caveat filed and the same were identified by the earlier counsel as well. The earlier counsel submitted that the review applicant was his regular client and had been engaging his services since 2015.

The earlier counsel appeared before the Court and filed a personal affidavit stating that the review applicant had come to his office along with his nephew and handed the signed vakalatnama to his clerk along with Rs. 2,500/-.

The Counsel also submitted that “in the past also, such unscrupulous clients, after having obtained an order from the High Court, and subsequently finding it convenient to avoid the same, has come forward and filed a review applications, alleging that they had not instructed the previous Advocate, and on that basis seeks recall of the earlier order, which may subsequently not be conducive to or in their interest.”

Noting that the applicant was the counsel's client since 2015, the Court observed that his conduct needed examination as it has direct repercussions on administration of justice. the Court called for vakalatanamas filed by the earlier counsel on behalf of the review applicant in sealed cover for examination of signatures.

On merits, the Court observed that statements contradictory to the record had been made, but whether they were made deliberately needed to be examined.

The case is directed to be listed on 13.07.2026.

Case: Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee Of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College And Another

Click Here To Read/Download Order