Delhi High Court Transfers Case After Lawyer Repeatedly Says 'I Cry My Beloved Justice System' And Walks Out Of Court, Calls It Misconduct

The Delhi High Court has transferred a case to another Bench after expressing strong displeasure over the conduct of an advocate who repeatedly remarked “I cry my beloved justice system” during a hearing and walked out of the courtroom.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora termed the conduct of the advocate as “reckless” and “reprehensible”, observing that it amounted to misconduct.

The Court rejected the advocate's apology, observing that it was neither heartfelt nor genuine and appeared to be “just lip service”.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by 91-year-old Arjun Dev Bhatia, challenging a trial court order permitting his daughter-in-law to enter his house in Pitampura as alternate accommodation under a domestic violence case.

The trial court had passed the order on October 23, after the daughter-in-law faced eviction from a rented flat where she had been residing with her husband and two children.

Bhatia, who was the absolute owner of the Pitampura house and resides there, challenged the said direction before the High Court.

During the hearing, the Court asked whether Bhatia was willing to pay monthly rent of Rs 27,500 to his daughter-in-law to enable her to continue residing in the rented flat or provide her with another accommodation of equivalent standard.

His counsel submitted that Bhatia was willing to pay the monthly rent and also deposit an advance amount equivalent to six months' rent.

However, counsel for the daughter-in-law submitted that she had already vacated the rented flat and handed over its keys to the landlord. This submission was disputed by counsel for her husband.

The Court noted that the daughter-in-law subsequently stated that she did not wish to return to rented accommodation even if Bhatia paid the monthly rent.

In view of the submissions, the Court directed Bhatia to deposit an amount equivalent to six months' rent with the Court. It further directed the husband to deposit any arrears payable to the landlord within two days.

The Court also issued notice to the landlord and directed him to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the rented flat so that the Court could verify whether the premises had actually been vacated.

The landlord was directed to remain present before the Court on November 5 at 10:30 AM.

The Court noted that the stand regarding the handing over of keys was being changed repeatedly by the daughter-in-law despite specific queries from the Bench.

It observed:

“It is extremely unfortunate that the stand on handover of keys to the landlord is being changed repeatedly by respondent no. 2, when the Court has specifically enquired about the status of handover of the possession of the flat to the landlord.”

The Court recorded that after the order was dictated, the advocate in question repeatedly made the remark “I cry my beloved justice system”, waved his hands and began walking out of the courtroom while the hearing was still underway.

The Court paused the proceedings and called him back, expressing surprise and displeasure over his conduct.

The Court observed that a counsel was expected to have the highest regard for the process of law and could not express loss of faith in the judicial system merely because an order did not suit him or his client.

It further remarked that the advocate's conduct appeared to suggest that he was entirely aligning himself with his client's interests to obtain desirable orders.

The Court also observed that the advocate might attempt to influence his client to instigate frivolous allegations against the Judge and the judicial system.

“In these circumstances, to protect the dignity of this Court and the judicial system, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer this matter to another Bench,” it held.

The Court clarified that the directions issued to the petitioner, landlord and the Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) would continue to operate.

The matter has been directed to be listed before another Bench, subject to the orders of the Judge-in-Charge (Criminal Side).