The Delhi High Court disapproved of litigants blaming their lawyers for delays, emphasizing that clients must actively monitor their cases. The court highlighted the need for convincing evidence of any lawyer’s wrongdoing to justify delays. The judgment underscores the mutual accountability of litigants and lawyers in legal proceedings to avoid neglect of responsibilities.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has strongly disapproved of the tendency of litigants blaming their lawyers for delays in approaching courts. The court emphasized that hiring legal counsel does not absolve a litigant of the responsibility to actively track their case.
“A litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to counsel,”
stated a bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta in its ruling on December 18.
The bench expressed strong disapproval of what it termed an “unwholesome practice” of shifting responsibility to lawyers by claiming negligence, tardiness, or mismanagement.
The court highlighted:
- Responsibility of the Litigant: Litigants must remain in touch with their lawyers throughout the case and cannot rely solely on their counsel.
- Evidence of Being Misled: The court requires “acceptable and convincing” evidence that the lawyer misled the litigant over the entire period of delay.
- Complaint to Bar Council: While it is easy to file complaints against lawyers with the Bar Council, the court noted that such complaints alone are not sufficient to justify delays.
The court was hearing a petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), filed six years after the original decision in a service dispute.
The petitioner argued that the delay occurred because:
- He belonged to a “socially unprivileged and uneducated family” in a remote village of Sohna.
- He relied on a lawyer who allegedly misled him with false dates and failed to file his case.
- Financial hardships prevented him from personally following up on the matter.
The petitioner claimed he discovered in August that his lawyer had not filed the case in the High Court and lodged a complaint with the District Bar Association, Gurgaon.
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory.
The bench stated:
“The court has to be satisfied that, in fact, the counsel has been misleading the client, and that this explains the entire period of delay in approaching the court. Of course, if the court is so satisfied, and an innocent litigant has been led up the garden path by an unscrupulous counsel, the court would not allow injustice to be done.”
However, the court noted that in this case, the petitioner failed to provide compelling evidence to support his claims against the lawyer or to justify the six-year delay.
This judgment reinforces the importance of accountability on both sides in legal matters:
- For Litigants: They must remain proactive and engaged in their cases, ensuring regular communication with their lawyers.
- For Lawyers: It underscores the professional responsibility of legal practitioners to avoid actions that might harm their clients’ interests.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE