Top
Top Stories

'We Strongly Deprecate Such Tactics': SC Bench To Lawyer For Not Speaking When His Case Was Called Through VC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
26 Aug 2020 7:30 AM GMT
We Strongly Deprecate Such Tactics: SC Bench To Lawyer For Not Speaking When His Case Was Called Through VC
x
"We strongly deprecate tactics of this kind. We do not want advocates to take advantage of a non-physical hearing system when it is working on both sides."
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Update on September 5 : The SC on September 4 expugned the adverse remarks against the advocate. Report about that may be read here.

The Supreme Court came down heavily on a lawyer who did not speak up while the case was called through video conferencing.

The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman, in its order, observed that the lawyer 'purposely did not open his mouth' because he was waiting for a Senior Advocate. The bench, also comprising of Justice Navin Sinha, said that it 'strongly deprecate tactics of this kind'  and that it do not want advocates to take advantage of a non-physical hearing system when it is working on both sides. 

The order reads thus:

Despite the fact that the mike was on and despite the fact that he was told by the Court at least three times that he should open his mouth, he purposely did not do so because he was waiting for a Senior Advocate. He should have come upfront with the Court and informed the Court that he was waiting for the Senior Advocate instead of indulging in tactics of this kind. We strongly deprecate tactics of this kind. We do not want advocates to take advantage of a non-physical hearing system when it is working on both sides.

After observing thus, the bench said that 'despite all this' it heard the counsel on merits. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the bench observed:

"Learned counsel exhorted us to appoint a retired Judge instead of a learned Senior Advocate, which is what was done by the Bombay High Court. We do not think in the fitness of things that we should interfere given our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

One lawyer who was present at the relevant time said that the lawyer was not aware that his case was being taken up. Legal Editor of CNN News 18, who spoke to the said lawyer, tweeted thus:

,

Click here to Read/Download Order



Next Story