Litigant Can't Disown Counsel's Statement To Reopen Case, Such Pleas Undermine Judicial Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a litigant cannot later disown a statement made by his counsel in court by alleging lack of instructions, terming such an attempt a “procedural heresy” and an abuse of the judicial process.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a litigant cannot later disown a statement made by his counsel in court by alleging lack of instructions, terming such an attempt a “procedural heresy” and an abuse of the judicial process.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with full authority and reflect the true intent of the litigant concerned. This principle ensures that the Court can effectively adjudicate without being compelled to verify the internal communications between a lawyer and the client at every state of proceedings. By executing a Vaqalatnama, a litigant clothes the counsel engaged with express as well as implied authority to plead, act and appear in the best interest of the client."
The Court added that, if If a litigant were permitted to resile from an adjudication/order made premised upon the statement/argument advanced by his/her counsel, it would render every court proceeding tentative and every judicial order vulnerable to being reopened, simply because the litigant has had a change of heart or has engaged a new counsel.
Justice Goel highlighted that, entertaining such a plea would pave the way for a dangerous precedent, effectively allowing a second bite at the apple. It is to be borne in mind that a counsel is an officer of the court and not merely a mechanical agent of the litigant; and owes a duty to the court to ensure the smooth administration of justice. If an act, conduct or concession given by a counsel is not deemed to be authorized by the litigant, the entire adjudicatory framework would stall, as no opposing party or presiding officer could ever rely upon a statement made by a legal representative.
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a murder case wherein FIR under Sections 341, 323, 302, 148, 149 IPC (with Section 325 IPC added later) was lodged. The case pertains to a fatal assault in which one Tasavar died after being attacked by multiple assailants armed with weapons.
On January 28, 2026, the anticipatory bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn after counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner would appear before the trial court within seven days and seek regular bail.
Subsequently, the present application was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking recall of that order on the ground that the earlier counsel had made the statement without instructions.
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that no material was placed on record to substantiate the allegation that the statement was made without authority. It further noted that the scope of recalling such an order is extremely limited in view of Section 403 BNSS (corresponding to Section 362 CrPC).
The Court underscored a fundamental principle governing court proceedings, “The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with full authority and reflect the true intent of the litigant concerned.”
It emphasized that once a vakalatnama is executed, the counsel is vested with both express and implied authority to act in the client's best interest. Allowing litigants to later disown such statements would render judicial proceedings uncertain and orders vulnerable to reopening.
“If a litigant were permitted to resile from an adjudication made on the basis of counsel's statement, it would make every court proceeding tentative… effectively allowing a second bite at the apple.”
The Court came down heavily on the petitioner's attempt to attribute lack of instructions to his previous counsel, calling it, a “procedural heresy” and an “affront to the adjudicatory process” and an attempt to “turn the Court into a laboratory for experimental litigation”.
It observed that the earlier withdrawal of the petition was a prudent step by counsel to avoid an adverse order on merits, and allowing the petitioner to disown it would undermine the integrity of the legal profession.
“The applicant-petitioner… cannot be permitted to act as a stranger to the actions taken by his counsel in open court.”
The Court further warned that entertaining such pleas would erode the sanctity of the judicial process and encourage misuse of law.
"The attempt by the applicant-petitioner to disavow the withdrawal of petition under the guise of 'lack of instructions', amounts to a procedural heresy striking at the very root of the advocate-client relationship, as also an affront to the adjudicatory process, where an advocate plays pivotal role of assisting the court. In the earlier round, when this Court expressed a clear disinclination to grant the relief prayed for, the decision of the counsel (appearing for the applicant-petitioner) to withdraw the petition, in order to shield the applicant-petitioner from an adverse order on merit, which might have prejudiced the future remedies, is an exhibit of professional diligence and prudence," it added.
To allow the applicant-petitioner, at this stage, to characterise it as an unauthorized act is to undermine the very purpose of legal representation. The averment that the previous counsel was 'not properly instructed', stands in the face of the integrity of the legal profession, the Court said.
The judge further clarified that applicant-petitioner having put his signature on the Vaqalatnama, cannot be permitted to act as a stranger to the actions taken by his earlier counsel in open court, especially when such action was intended to mitigate a legal damage.
Exemplary Cost Is Inevitable In Like Cases
"A litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should be discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability, have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process of justice," the Court said.
Finding no merit in the case, the plea was dismissed with costs of ₹20,000.
Mr. Gaurav Grover, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana
Title: Ankit Rawal V/s State of Haryana