The court said the conduct of the lawyer was “unprofessional” and could not be justified by the standards expected from an advocate in court.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court recently referred a lawyer to the Delhi High Court and the Bar Council of Delhi for making disrespectful and inappropriate remarks during a hearing in a case linked to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
The court said the conduct of the lawyer was “unprofessional” and could not be justified by the standards expected from an advocate in court.
The case is related to an FIR registered at New Usmanpur police station in 2020, and the trial has been going on since 2021. The accused are facing serious charges, including murder, rioting, tampering with evidence, and being part of an unlawful assembly during the riots.
During a recent hearing at the Karkardooma court, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala questioned advocate Anil Kumar Goswami about why he was not ready for the cross-examination of witnesses.
In response, Goswami said that “he was just a proxy counsel” and not the main lawyer handling the case.
This response surprised and offended the judge, who pointed out that court records showed Goswami had been regularly appearing as counsel for both accused persons. The judge also reminded him that he had himself admitted to signing vakalatnamas on behalf of the accused.
According to the court’s order dated April 7, things escalated further when the advocate “bluntly retorted back saying that ‘koi score settle kar rahe hai kya (are you settling a score)’ and that ‘mujhe kya malum aapne aur steno ne kya likha (how do I know what you and the stenographer wrote)'”.
Reacting strongly to these comments, the judge remarked:
“Such kind of response from Anil Kumar Goswami, advocate, is shocking and has compelled me to presume that he has come prepared in the court with some different intentions, and I have no second thought that such conduct on the part of an advocate cannot be termed as professional on the parameters of rules framed by Bar Council.”
The court found Goswami’s remarks and behaviour deeply problematic.
ALSO READ: [Delhi Riots 2020 Case] Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused Shahrukh Pathan
In his order, ASJ Pulastya Pramachala wrote:
“…the conduct of Anil Kumar Goswami… is questionable and objectionable. Hence, same is referred to Bar Council of Delhi as well as to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, for assessment… on the parameters of professionalism expected from a lawyer before the court, and on the parameters of scandalising the proceedings before the court, while making some unwarranted remarks.”
