Bombay High Court directs Bar Council to dismiss complaint against government pleader Geeta Shastri

The Bombay High Court recently took exception to the practice of litigants filing frivolous complaints with Bar Council against lawyers appearing for the opposite party..A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale said that such complaints are used to intimidate and browbeat the opposing counsel so as to ensure that the opponent does not get adequate or proper legal representation. "This constant threat of the disciplinary complaints against the opposing counsel is actually being used in several matters that have come before us to intimidate and browbeat opposing counsel, and to ensure that the opponent does not get adequate or proper legal representation” the bench said in its 10-page order.Advocates do not have the duty to propound the case of the opposing party, the Court added.It, therefore, directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to dismiss a complaint filed with the (BCMG) against senior government pleader Geeta Shastri..Shastri moved the Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her based on the complaint of a litigant. The BCMG had been approached with a complaint by a lawyer claiming that Shastri had committed forgery and perjury by putting signatures on certain documents attached to an affidavit..The government pleader moved the Court stating that in a suit against the State government, a written statement had been filed to which certain documents had been annexed. The documents had been signed as true copies by another government lawyer. Shastri meanwhile had signed the written statement which had the annexures appended.The lawyer opposing the State government took objection to the ‘true copy sign’ and alleged perjury and forgery against Shastri. Shastri responded by stating that it was a ‘practice’ which was followed in the High Court pursuant to a judicial order.Unsatisfied with this explanation, the lawyer filed a complaint before the BCMG..A division bench of the High Court on March 24, 2023 stayed the order initiating proceedings against Shastri. Subsequently, in its order of August 9, the High Court found that there was no form of misconduct on Shastri’s part.The Court said that a lawyer cannot be held liable for deposition of an individual litigant on affidavit which might be false."Nothing in Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) persuades us to accept this extreme a proposition. That Rule clearly says that Affidavits are to be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove," the Court noted.In this case, Shastri was not the deponent of the affidavit, the Court underlined."Ms Shastri was not the deponent of the Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons. The principal of the college was. The matters, statements and assertions in that Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons may have been within the personal knowledge of the deponent within the meaning of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By no stretch of the imagination could they have been said to be to the personal knowledge of the advocate-on-record," the Court said.Pertinently, the Court noted that Shastri was not even the advocate-on-record and she merely identified the deponent of that affidavit.Hence, it said that the proceedings against Shastri are flawed.“The entire recommendation of the matter to the Disciplinary Committee is fundamentally flawed and based on a complete misconception of Shashtri’s role and her duties as an advocate at the Bar. More than that, the report completely overlooks that Shashtri is first and foremost an officer of the Court. Unless it is shown that there is misconduct within the frame of the statute or that there is a sufficient case made for an investigation into that aspect of the matter, there is no question of pillorying every advocate just because a litigant feels aggrieved in some particular litigation.” the bench held..The court also emphasized its concern for the interest of advocates at the Bar.“We perceive our role as Judges quite differently. We are not merely adjudicating this or that dispute. We are equally concerned with standards at the Bar, and we are also concerned that the interest of advocates should not lightly be compromised because of some fanciful notions that a litigant may have. The consequences of such action on the lives and careers of advocates and the attendant emotional and mental trauma are almost indescribable” the bench underscored..Advocates Vishal Kanade and Akshay Shinde appeared for Shastri.Advocate Makrand Bakore appeared for BCMG.Advocates NR Pradhan, JJ Satghar and VL Gurav appeared for the complainant.Advocate Shekhar Jagtap appeared for the Bar Council of India.[Read Judgment]