The Delhi High Court emphasised that briefing counsel and instructing law firms must ensure cited judgments are valid and not under appeal or review, stressing that misleading the court undermines fairness and judicial integrity.
The Delhi High Court highlighted the responsibility of briefing counsel and instructing law firms to ensure that case laws cited by litigants are well-established and not currently challenged through appeals or review petitions.
This observation came after the court noted that the lawyers for a petitioner had relied on an order from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), which was under review.
This situation raised concerns about the finality of the cited ruling, making it inappropriate to use it as a precedent. The lawyers failed to inform the court that the CERC order was under review.
The court also pointed out a similar lack of diligence from the petitioner in citing a High Court judgment that was under appeal before the Supreme Court.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav remarked that referencing case laws with unsettled finality could mislead the court. The court emphasized that briefing counsel and law firms are expected to verify such details before citing any case law.
The court stated in its November 3 ruling,
“The instructing and briefing counsels/law firms are expected to diligently and sincerely verify authorities before they cite them in a Court. Reliance upon a decision that is under review or appeal, without disclosing such pendency, amounts to lack of candour to the Court and may mislead the adjudicatory process. Such conduct falls short of the standard of fairness and completeness that is expected from officers of the Court,”
The court clarified that it does not expect senior advocates, who present arguments, to investigate each judgment personally. Instead, this responsibility lies with the lawyers and law firms instructing these senior advocates.
It explained,
“This Court does not expect learned senior counsels to personally investigate each judgement which they would cite before a court of law, and to check whether a review, appeal or revision is pending against the same. That duty rests upon the counsel or firm instructing the senior counsels,”
The case involved a dispute regarding a shortfall in power supply from a 300-megawatt wind power project in Gujarat, operated by Renew Wind Energy, to the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI).
SECI sought compensation from Renew Wind for the alleged shortfall and breach of a Power Purchase Agreement, issuing a notice for compensation. Renew Wind then approached the High Court for interim orders under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to prevent any coercive action until an arbitral tribunal could be formed.
During the proceedings, Renew Wind’s counsel cited a CERC order to support their arguments, but the court pointed out that this ruling was under review a fact not disclosed by the counsel. Although the CERC dismissed the review petition after the court reserved its verdict, the court emphasized that the counsel still had a duty to disclose the pending review at the time of citation.
The court explained,
“At the time of reliance, the petitioner could not have known whether the review would be allowed or rejected; had it been allowed, the petitioner would have been citing an order later set aside in review. Therefore, such disclosures are expected from parties seeking to rely on a decision as laying down the correct position of law,”
The court highlighted,
“The justice delivery system functions on mutual trust between the Bar and the Bench. Each stakeholder, the litigant, the counsel, and the Court, bears a shared responsibility towards upholding its integrity. Any lapse diminishes confidence in the system as a whole.”
Ultimately, the court accepted the petitioner’s counsel’s assurance that the oversights were not intentional.
Clarifying that this would not affect the merits of the case, it noted,
“The Court does not propose to dwell further on the issue. During the hearing, Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel, submitted that the nondisclosure of the pendency of the SLP was inadvertent and bona fide, and the Court accepts his explanation in that spirit,”
The court ultimately rejected the petition on the grounds of maintainability, affirming that the CERC holds exclusive authority to refer disputes involving power-generating companies or transmission licensees for arbitration.
Representing Renew Wind Energy were Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, along with advocates from Trilegal, including Vishrov Mukherjee, Girik Bhalla, Sai Snigdha Nittala, Juhi Senguttuvan, Priyanka Vyas, Yashaswi Kant, Prayush Singh, and Pallavi Arora.
Senior Advocate MG Ramachandran, supported by advocates Anushree Bardhan, Srishti Khindaria, Somya Sahni, Ritika Singh, and Aneesh Bajaj, represented SECI.
Case Title: Renew Wind Energy (Ap2) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Solar Energy Corporation of India