In a recent hearing, the Gujarat High Court emphasized the importance of effective advocacy, urging lawyers to argue their cases rather than merely reading out petitions. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee, expressed their concerns, stating that simply reading the petition amounts to a
“criminal waste of judicial time.”
“Reading the entire writ petition would be a criminal waste of judicial time. In the name of justice, you cannot insist this court to read the entire petition,”
remarked an irked Chief Justice Agarwal to the advocate presenting the case.
The counsel responded by emphasizing the court’s role in delivering justice to litigants, suggesting that bypassing the reading of petitions might compromise this duty. However, Chief Justice Agarwal retorted,
“Please do not take undue liberty. We are very well aware and understand that courts are meant to deliver justice to litigants. Stop creating a scene here now.”
The bench adjourned the hearing till September 8, leaving the advocate with a clear directive:
“to argue and not read the petition.”
The case in question revolved around the acquisition of specific land in July 1987. The petitioners, claiming to be the aggrieved landowners, challenged the compensation award passed by the acquisition authorities. They argued that their lands were acquired despite not being initially part of the acquisition proceedings.
When the court inquired about the acquisition notifications, the advocate urged the bench
“to have patience”
and requested permission to read from the documents. The court responded,
“If you are not going to answer our query, we will decide it in our own way. Please make out a case first by arguing and not by referring to some documents.”
The Chief Justice clarified her intent to continue hearing the case and not recuse herself. The counsel then outlined
“two methods of arguing”
– one by highlighting aspects of the petition and the other by reading and explaining the entire petition. The bench responded,
“No, but you cannot insist the Court to read the entire petition. A counsel knows how to argue. We are not students here that you will explain the petition by reading it.”
The court’s stance was clear: lawyers should present their arguments effectively without relying solely on reading the petition. The bench advised the lawyer to
“argue the matter in a manner a counsel is supposed to argue.”
When the counsel interjected, suggesting the bench should hear the matter as usual, the court reminded him to respect the proceedings and return for the next hearing
“fully prepared to argue his case and not read.”