The Calcutta High Court reprimanded a lawyer for not filing a required signed copy of an order with an appeal, raising concerns about professional conduct. The court emphasized the importance of procedural adherence, criticizing the influence of junior lawyers on registry officials and warning against circumventing established legal processes.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Nov 13th reprimanded a lawyer for allegedly failing to file the necessary copy of a single-judge order while submitting an appeal, raising concerns about professional conduct and procedural adherence. The case, Srabanti Sinha Roy and anr. v. State of West Bengal, brought forth questions about the apparent use of undue influence by junior lawyers on court registry officials, pushing the appeal through without a copy of the order under challenge.
The Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya had previously allowed counsel Billwadal Bhattacharya to submit the appeal without a certified physical copy, granting permission to file with an “online server copy” instead. However, it became apparent during the hearing that even the server copy was unavailable at the time of filing. Instead, an undertaking was given in the memo of appeal, stating that the server copy would be provided at the hearing.
Addressing the situation on Wednesday, Justice Bhattacharyya questioned,
“You did not point out that the server copy was not available… Leave was granted to file the appeal without a certified copy. How could you file this appeal without the server copy?”
Chief Justice Sivagnanam expressed his concerns further, hinting at inappropriate actions by the lawyer’s team:
“I think some of your juniors have gone and threatened the department and convinced them to accept your undertaking… This is very wrong, sir. The department functions for the advocates. They are a limb of the High Court. If you go and threaten them, then what they will do?”
In response, counsel Bhattacharya offered an unconditional apology, clarifying that the server copy had only become available online on Tuesday evening, after the appeal was filed. Bhattacharya highlighted the urgency of the matter, noting that interim protection for his client, related to a “case of political persecution,” was set to expire the following week.
While Bhattacharya sought a prompt listing for further hearing, the State’s counsel countered by arguing that the appeal was not legally maintainable. This led Chief Justice Sivagnanam to lament the increasing use of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — granting the court inherent powers to quash criminal cases — without exhausting other remedies available before trial courts. He voiced concern over a “new jurisprudence” emerging, where appeals to the High Court are favored over proceedings in lower courts.
“You are not appearing before the lower courts, and you are only appearing before High Court?”
he asked.
After the hearing, the Court agreed to list the matter on November 19 (Tuesday), conditional upon the submission of the server copy of the single-judge order. The Court emphasized that “leave was granted to file the appeal without the certified copy with a specific understanding that the server copy should be enclosed” and expressed displeasure that the appellant’s counsel had instead offered an undertaking to file the server copy later.
The court concluded its order by granting liberty to the appellant to file the server copy with the department, following which the appeal would be listed for admission.
This reprimand from the High Court underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the integrity expected in court filings. By addressing these lapses, the Calcutta High Court reiterated its commitment to upholding judicial standards and preserving the balance between access to higher courts and the necessity of following established legal processes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE