Last week( 1st March): The Supreme Court recently fined an advocate-on-record Rs10,000 for submitting a petition with unsubstantiated grounds. In the case of Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar, the Court condemned the inclusion of factually incorrect and misleading grounds in the petition. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the importance of diligence in legal filings and criticized the casual approach to drafting petitions. The Court granted bail to the accused, but cautioned against the misuse of liberty granted. The fine was imposed on the appellant’s lawyer for the negligent preparation of the appeal, with instructions to deposit the costs with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.
NEW DELHI: This week (1st March): The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of accuracy and diligence in legal petitions, imposing a fine of Rs 10,000 on an advocate-on-record (AoR) for submitting a petition with factual inaccuracies.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the necessity of careful consideration in legal filings, deeming the inclusion of erroneous grounds unacceptable.
Advocate Satpal Singh, along with VS Dubey, represented the accused (appellant), while Advocates Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Hardik Choudhary, and Ravi Ranjan appeared for the Bihar government.
“Grounds ‘A’ and ‘B’, which are factual grounds, are incorrect and misleading. The learned Advocate-on-Record claims that the grounds have been incorporated in the Appeal by mistake. However, we find that it is a case of non-application of mind by the Advocate who drafted the Appeal and perhaps, these grounds have been picked up from some other Special Leave Petition drafted by the Advocate. We cannot tolerate the Special Leave Petition being filed in such a casual manner,”
the Court observed.
READ ALSO: Judicial Officer Accusing CJM of Harassment Transferred to New Position
Background
The case pertained to a bail plea filed by an individual accused of rioting and attempted murder. Initially denied bail by the Patna High Court, the accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court for relief.
Granting interim bail on January 5, the Supreme Court later converted it into absolute bail in the March 1 order. The Court justified its decision by noting the filing of the chargesheet and the accused’s compliance with trial court appearances, deeming custody unnecessary at that stage.
READ ALSO: LAND GRAB SCAM|| Former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren Summoned By Ranchi Court
The Court, however, cautioned that any misuse of the granted liberty would enable the State and the first informant to seek bail cancellation.
In addition to granting bail, the Court imposed a fine on the appellant’s lawyer for the lax preparation of the appeal, directing the deposit of these costs with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.
CASE TITLE: Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar
