A senior counsel telling the Bench “Court does not have time” while it was dictating an order was an Attempt To Browbeat the Court, the Gujarat High Court has said, deprecating Senior Advocate I.H. Syed’s conduct and asking that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice, while refusing regular bail to his client in a POCSO case.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has recorded strong disapproval of the courtroom conduct of Senior Advocate I.H. Syed, holding that his remark to the Bench during the dictation of an order, alongside his “affront posture”, was unbefitting a designated senior advocate. The observations came in an order dismissing a 76-year-old accused’s application for regular bail after charge-sheet in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 [Accused v. State of Gujarat & Anr.].
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar passed the order on November 5, 2026, after an earlier hearing on November 3. The name of the accused and the details of the place of offence are withheld to protect the identity of the child survivor.
What happened on November 3
The Court said 170 matters were listed that day, of which 156 were taken up and 71 disposed of. It extended time to hear Syed, who appeared virtually, and then heard the Additional Public Prosecutor and the complainant’s counsel. When the Court indicated it was not inclined to accept his submissions on the DNA report, age and potency of the accused, Syed sought to make further oral arguments. The Court instead allowed a brief written synopsis, listed the matter on November 5, and directed the Registry to preserve the live-streaming recording in view of the counsel’s apprehension that he had not been given ample opportunity.
“Write down Sir! Court does not have time”
In the November 5 order, the Court described what followed as the session drew to a close.
“He explicitly and aggressively uttered to the Court while the Court was dictating the order, ‘Write down Sir ! Court does not have time’ (‘Lakhi do Saaheb Court pase time Nathi’). This utterance, alongside his affront posture, amounts to an attempt to browbeat the Court and he tried to reprimand the Court over its Court time management and dictated Court scheduling it.”
The Court added that he had engaged in “persistent redundancy”, insisting on reading statements “as if he is conducting a final hearing of conviction appeal rather than arguing a bail matter”, while other advocates and litigants waited for their turn.
“Not an isolated event”
The Court noted that a Coordinate Bench had earlier passed a strict order on the senior advocate’s conduct in SCA No. 7311 of 2025 on May 23, 2025, when he tendered an unconditional apology, and referred to two other orders in which his conduct had been noted. Relying on D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra, it said a designated senior advocate holds a privileged status and is expected to serve as a role model for the Bar.
“The learned Senior Advocate continues to use these tactics to compel the Court to either adjourn matters or pass desired orders.”
One more chance, and a reference to the Chief Justice
The Court requested the Registry to place the matter, with the November 3 order and the live-streaming transcript, before the Chief Justice for consideration of proceedings under Rule 7 of the High Court of Gujarat (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2025 “in the event of any recurrence”. It nonetheless extended “one more chance” to Syed, expressing the hope that he would not show “intolerance or indecorous behaviour before any Court”, and left the issue open for “social audit or scrutiny” by the Bar and litigants. These are the Court’s observations; Syed’s response is not on record in the order.
Bail refused
On merits, the defence argued that the DNA of the child born to the survivor did not match the accused, that the FIR was lodged after eight to nine months, and that medical history showed he was incapable of the offence. The State and the complainant opposed bail, pointing to the survivor’s statement, witness statements and the medical opinion that there was “nothing to suggest that patient is not potent”.
The Court held that a non-matching DNA report did not by itself rule out the offence where more than one person was alleged to be involved, that delay in sexual offences had been explained, and that the filing of a charge-sheet did not dilute the allegations. Citing the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, it dismissed the application but directed the trial court to expedite the trial. The Court clarified that its observations are tentative, and the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty at trial.
Why the order matters
The order sits at the heart of Bar-Bench relations under heavy cause lists. It uses the live-streaming record as a safeguard on both sides, and signals that a High Court may take a designated senior advocate’s repeated courtroom conduct to the Chief Justice under the new designation rules, while still preferring a warning over immediate action.
Case Title: Accused v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail – After Chargesheet) No. 11395 of 2026; 2026:GUJHC:71501] (name of accused withheld to protect the child survivor)
Bench: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, Gujarat High Court
Date of Order: November 5, 2026 (earlier order: November 3, 2026)
For the Applicant: Senior Advocate I.H. Syed, with Jaimin A. Gandhi
For the Respondents: Himanshu K. Patel, APP, for the State; Neha C. Shukla for the complainant
If a child is in danger or needs help, call CHILDLINE 1098.