The Supreme Court questioned a lady advocate for getting personally involved with the client she was legally representing, while granting relief to the London-based IT professional accused in the case. The Bench emphasized professional ethics and fair procedure.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a Supreme Court hearing before Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, a case involving allegations by a practicing advocate against her former client, Praveen, an IT professional residing in London, unfolded with intense scrutiny and courtroom drama. The hearing highlighted the Court’s cautious approach toward the complainant and a favorable stance for Praveen.
The complainant, a 36-year-old practicing advocate, had been personally involved with Praveen while allegedly handling his matrimonial matters. The judges also took note of the allegation that she had filed multiple similar sexual-offense complaints against different men, a pattern that further raised doubts about her conduct.
The Supreme Court expressed skepticism about her conduct, emphasizing the importance of professional ethics.
Justice Nagarathna questioned:
“Your client is not an ordinary person, uneducated or naive. She is an advocate. She is handling the petitioner’s divorce case. Why did you do that?”
Justice Nagarathna further added,
“You are an advocate. Then why did you enter a personal relationship with your own client? Why did you believe you could marry him while knowing his divorce was still pending? And why would you behave like this despite being a lawyer who handles such matters every day?”
The Court highlighted that, as a lawyer, the complainant should have been aware of her boundaries and maintained a professional relationship with her client. The repeated filing of sexual-offense complaints against multiple men raised further doubts about her credibility.
The Respondent’s counsel tried to portray Praveen as absconding from the case. However, the Court immediately rejected this:
“Once 82 proceedings started, there’s no question of anticipatory… but for any other person, not for a person like your party.”
The Court clarified that Praveen had been residing in London for years and did not “run away,” a significant relief for him.
The Respondent’s counsel argued that Praveen should be denied relief due to alleged proclamation proceedings. The Court did not accept this argument, ensuring that Praveen could still participate in the legal process and that anticipatory bail remained available.
Instead of taking allegations at face value, the Court allowed the filing of affidavits for factual clarification. Complainant’s counsel said,
“It’s only requesting you to advise your client… let her concentrate on her profession. I’ll put it on the affidavit, your Lordship, after notice.”
This demonstrates the Court’s cautious approach, emphasizing the need for verified evidence before taking action.
The Court issued notices, recorded appearances, and set the next hearing date on 12th without imposing coercive steps against Praveen. Justice Nagarathna noted:
“In the meantime, no coercive step. You shall be taken as against the petitioner herein.”
Key Observations from the Hearing
- Court skeptical of the complainant: The Court questioned the advocate about her professional and personal conduct rather than Praveen.
- Praveen not at fault: No adverse findings were made against him; his foreign residence did not count against him.
- Allegations treated cautiously: The Court allowed clarification through affidavits instead of presuming guilt.
- No coercive action: The Court ensured procedural normalcy and protection of Praveen’s legal rights.
- Professional ethics emphasized: The case highlights the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between client and advocate.
Appearance:
Petitioner’s Counsel: Rishi Malhotra
Respondent’s Counsel: Shishir Pinaki