Senior Counsel Harish Salve unknowing of adjournment request; court rebukes practice of using Senior Advocates’ names without consent. Justice highlights accountability and respect for the institution.
New Delhi: Senior Counsel Harish Salve informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that an adjournment was sought in his name without his knowledge and without informing him. This revelation sparked strong remarks from the Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, who questioned the fairness of such practices.
A lawyer from Salve’s office brought the issue to the court’s attention, stating that this was not the first time such an incident had occurred.
“Mr. Salve has requested me to apprise your lordships that he had not been informed about it at all! This is very unfair to your lordships, and this is unfair to the counsel. He’s not been informed at all, and this is not the first occasion,”
the lawyer told the Bench.
On Wednesday, a lawyer had sought adjournment, claiming that Salve, who was supposed to appear in the matter, could not be present. This led the court to rebuke the lawyer, stating that the practice of citing Senior Advocates’ names to seek adjournments was becoming increasingly common.
After Salve’s office clarified that he was unaware of the adjournment request, the Bench emphasized that the issue was not about individual Senior Advocates but a larger, troubling pattern.
“We are not on individual persons. It is very unfair. This is not the first time. Other day, in an earlier combination, you have mentioned that you consulted the office of the senior advocate and he wanted the case to be listed on a particular date,”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court transfers CBI cases to Assam in Manipur Violence
the Bench remarked.
Justice Oka further questioned what action would be taken against the lawyer who sought adjournment in Salve’s name.
“Somebody has to take responsibility,”
Justice Oka said, indicating the need for accountability in such cases.
A lawyer from Salve’s office reiterated that they were always taught to respect the court and never take it for granted.
“That is your temple, that is where you have to appear, and that is where you have to bow down. There are people who are doing things in his (Salve’s) name, and he is aggrieved that he does not even get to know about it,”
the lawyer added.
Justice Oka pointed out that an apology should be offered to the institution, not just individual judges.
“You may not like judges, but there is no harm in apologizing to the institution. You may not like an individual judge, but even that remorse is not shown by junior members of the Bar! That will be harmful to them in the future,”
Justice Oka remarked.
The lawyer who had requested the adjournment appeared before the court and clarified that he had done so based on instructions from his client.
“My Lord, I had made that request yesterday because my client instructed me to say this. Mr. Salve had appeared in this matter, so I had no reason to disbelieve that he had not spoken to the client,”
ALSO READ: Manipur High Court Orders Restoration of Mobile Internet in Violence-Free Districts
the lawyer explained.
Justice Oka then asked whether any action had been taken against the client.
“The client is always directly in touch with Mr. Salve’s office. So we had no reason to disbelieve. We deeply apologize for the miscommunication, even to Mr. Salve,”
the lawyer responded.
With this, Justice Oka put the issue to rest, saying,
“Alright. It’s done now.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES