The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing, expressed its astonishment and concern over the conduct of an advocate who refused to argue a case before a specific bench of the Allahabad High Court. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, was hearing a criminal appeal related to the conviction of accused persons under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants had initially been granted interim bail by the Allahabad High Court until the disposal of their appeal. However, the situation escalated when their counsel, Anil Kumar Shrivastava, declined to argue before the High Court bench, resulting in the cancellation of the interim bail.
The Supreme Court bench, addressing this issue, stated,
“We are shocked to note that the advocate appointed by the appellants was bold enough to tell the concerned Bench of the High Court that he would not like to argue the matter before that Bench.”
The Court emphasized that the appellants should not have been penalized due to the default of their advocate, saying,
“Needless to add that only on account of default by the advocate for the appellants, the appellants ought not to have been penalized by passing a drastic order of cancelling bail.”
The Supreme Court restored the bail that had been granted by the High Court as an interim measure until the disposal of the criminal appeal. The Court also noted that the High Court had other options available, such as appointing an amicus curiae to represent the accused and proceeding with the hearing on merits. The Supreme Court elaborated,
“This Court has repeatedly taken the view that in a given case where an unwarranted adjournment is sought by the advocate representing the accused in the appeal against conviction, the Court has an option of appointing an amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the accused and hearing the appeal on merits. The said course could have been adopted by the High Court.”
In addition to restoring the bail, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to the advocate, Anil Kumar Shrivastava, for his refusal to argue before the High Court. The Court observed,
“Prima facie, we are of the view that the conduct of the advocate recorded in the impugned order may amount to infamous conduct and it may also, prima facie, amount to criminal contempt.”
The lawyer was directed to be personally present in the Court on January 22, 2024, and a copy of the notice was to be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for service on the advocate.
This incident highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring that the rights of appellants are not compromised due to the actions of their legal representatives. The decision to restore the bail and issue a show-cause notice to the advocate reflects the Court’s approach to balancing the administration of justice and the accountability of legal practitioners.
