The Delhi High Court held that neither an advocate nor a self-represented litigant can justify a long delay in filing an appeal by claiming they could not understand the court order, stressing that legal research or consultation is only a routine exercise.
The Delhi High Court ruled that neither an advocate nor a litigant representing themselves can excuse a long delay in filing an appeal by claiming they could not understand a lower court’s order.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma heard the case brought by a petitioner-in-person who is himself a practising lawyer challenging a Sessions Court order after a delay exceeding one year.
The petitioner said he had difficulty comprehending the Sessions Court order and therefore undertook detailed legal research to grasp its implications before approaching the High Court.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Gets Applications from 293 Lawyers for Senior Advocate Designation
The Bench, however, found this explanation not satisfactory for condoning the delay, particularly given the petitioner’s status as a practising advocate.
The Court observed,
“What thus emerges from the record is that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The explanation that the petitioner was engaged in understanding the impugned order and conducting legal research in itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of about one year, especially when the petitioner himself is a practising advocate,”
The Bench further noted that legal research is a routine part of legal practice, and an inability to understand a judicial order does not justify excusing an inordinate delay.
The Bench added,
“Even otherwise, legal research or consultation with other lawyers, even by a practising lawyer is a routine exercise undertaken by a self represented litigant and advocates alike, in case, one is not able to understand the order passed by a trial Court which is to be challenged in a higher Court. Not being able to understand a judicial order by a self represented litigant, who wants to challenge the order before a higher Court or by a counsel who may receive a brief on behalf of a client cannot be treated as a ground to justify an inordinate delay,”
The petitioner had contested a Sessions Court decision that discharged an accused and quashed the summoning order. Records showed the petition was filed 412 days after the order, though the petitioner claimed the delay was about 316 days.
The Court pointed out that the condonation application failed to specify any steps taken during the more-than-one-year interval following the Sessions Court order.
The Court noted,
“There is no disclosure of any specific dates, events, or circumstances explaining the cause of delay and as to why the petitioner could not approach this Court within a reasonable time,”
It also observed that, if the petitioner truly had difficulty understanding the order or the legal position, he could have sought help from another lawyer or obtained timely legal advice.
The Bench said,
“The record does not indicate that the petitioner exercised due diligence or reasonable promptitude in pursuing the remedy available to him. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if such explanations were to be readily accepted, the requirement of showing “sufficient cause” for delay would lose its meaning as every litigant or lawyer will take this ground that he was unable to understand the judicial order and remained busy in understanding the order and conducting legal research for more than one year,”
ALSO READ: Behind the Gown: The Rigorous Process of Senior Advocate Designation
The Court observed that, although there is no fixed limitation for petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they must still be filed within a reasonable time.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application to condone the delay and rejected the challenge to the Sessions Court order.
Advocate Ajit Kumar Gola appeared in person. Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya, with advocates Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta, represented the State.
Case Title: Ajit Kumar Gola Vs State (GNCTD) and Anr