A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason, the court observed.
The Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation vs. M. Rajashekar, has ruled that courts, tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.
Overruling objections raised by the high court registry on a vakalatnama on the ground that it does not contain ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, a division bench of Justice HG Ramesh and Justice John Michael Cunha said a party cannot be denied of his ‘absolute’ right to appoint a new advocate of his choice
Referring to R.D.Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma, the Court said that a party to a litigation has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate, the Bench said.
The court added that if an advocate is discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his client relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
Read the order here.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.