Allahabad High Court Decodes 'Ramcharitmanas Chaupai' For Advocate Who Quoted It Without Context; Rejects Belated Plea

In an interesting order passed recently, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) decoded a Chaupai from Shri Ramcharitmanas, an epic poem in the Awadhi language by the 16th-century Indian poet Goswami Tulsidas, for a Lawyer.A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also delivered a sharp lesson to the counsel who attempted to rely on the verse without understanding its true context.Briefly put, a Writ plea filed by one Avanindra Kumar Gupta, who challenged an order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) dismissing his application for recall of an order, whereby his appeal was dismissed after recording his statement that the desired information had been received by him. The impugned order was passed in February 2023, and the present writ petition was filed in December last year; however, the delay of approximately 2 years and 10 months was not explained in the petition. When the bench asked his counsel as to why the writ petition should be entertained when it suffers from unexplained laches, his counsel submitted that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under Article 226. Interestingly, his counsel also referred to a speech of George Bernard Shaw and further quoted the following chaupayi from SriRamcharitmanas: समरथ कहुँ नहिं दोषु गोसाईं। रबि पावक सुरसरि की नाईं॥ However, when he was 'requested' by Justice Vidyarthi to elaborate his submission based on the said Chaupayi and 'enlighten' as to who had said it, to whom and in what context, the Counsel replied that he was not aware of the same. Taking a stern view of this, the Court observed that "whenever a Counsel refers to any text from any book, he must do so only after himself understanding the true purport of the same". Furthermore, Justice Vidyarthi relied on his own judgment in the case of Swami Prasad Maurya v. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 420, wherein it was observed that extracts from books must not be placed "divorced from the context" in which they were said. Interestingly, Justice Vidyarthi further explained the verse, noting that the Chaupayi depicts what was spoken by Maharshi Narad to Himalaya soon after the birth of his daughter, Parvati. Furthermore, Justice Vidyarthi detailed the mythological context of the verse and stated in the order that Narad had predicted that Parvati's husband would not have parents, would be a yogi, and would wear strange attire. Narad explained that all these attributes are present in Lord Shiva and are considered his qualities, the Court noted. Justice Vidyarthi further elucidated the metaphors used in the verse: "A person who is able to do anything is not blamed like Lord Vishnu rests on Sheshnag (Snake), but the wisemen do not blame him for this reason; the sun and fire burn everything good or bad, which comes in their contact but they are not blamed for the same; all kinds of water is added and flows in the River Ganges but no one blames it". The Court further concluded that the verse had "no application to the facts of the present case". Similarly, the bench noted that George Bernard Shaw's quote ["there is only one golden rule that there is no golden rule"] referred to by the counsel was also irrelevant to this case. "…this saying would apply to the situations where the facts and circumstances of the case justifying invoking discretion of the Court… The Courts cannot exercise the discretion arbitrarily and whimsically so as to entertain a belated petition without any reason for the delay", the bench remarked. Furthermore, the Court found the petition also lacked merit. It noted that the petitioner sought to recall an order based on the claim that the information received was incomplete. However, the bench noted that under Rule 12 of the UP Right to Information Rules 2015, a recall is permissible only for procedural defects, such as an order passed without a hearing, and not for the grounds raised by the petitioner. "The averment that information received was not complete and yet the appellant had made the statement that he had received requisite information, does not make out any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 12 (1) of the U.P. Right to Information Rules 2015 for recall of the order", the bench noted. Therefore, finding no illegality in the impugned order, the writ plea was dismissed.Case title - Avanindra Kumar Gupta vs. U.P. Information Commission Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad High Court Decodes 'Ramcharitmanas Chaupai' For Advocate Who Quoted It Without Context; Rejects Belated Plea

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags