The Uttarakhand High Court is witness to a controversy brewing between the Bar and the Bench..Justice Lok Pal Singh, whose court was boycotted by lawyers in the state earlier this year, has called upon the Full Court to decide whether or not Senior Advocate Avtar Singh Rawat should be stripped of his designation on grounds of professional misconduct..A judgment to this effect was passed while hearing a land acquisition dispute involving Power Grid Corporation of India, for whom Rawat appeared..The case was an appeal filed by one Gurbachan Singh, whose land was acquired by the Corporation for the purpose of carrying on construction activities. Aggrieved by the compensation received for the acquisition, Singh had approached the High Court..Justice Singh ultimately decided that the petitioner was entitled to statutory interest on compensation awarded due to delay in payment of compensation and awarded costs of Rs. 2,50,000 to him..Towards the end of the judgment passed in February this year, things take a turn for the worse for the counsel representing the Corporation..While dealing with an application filed by the petitioner (Singh) seeking disciplinary action to be taken against Rawat, the Court makes some rather strong remarks against the Senior Advocate..It was taken on record that Rawat had previously appeared for the petitioner in the present case, in a similar litigation filed against Power Grid Corporation of India in 2009. The fact that he was representing the opposite side in this petition, was in the opinion of the judge, unethical..In an order passed on January 11 this year, the Court had given Rawat an opportunity to file his objections to the averments in the application. Then, he had submitted that he was not the Advocate-on-Record for the 2009 matter, since he was engaged as a Senior counsel. However, the Court found that Rawat was not a designated Senior Counsel at that point. Despite the opportunity granted by the Court, Rawat did not withdraw himself from the case and argued the matter on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India against his previous client in the same subject matter..The Court did not hold back in criticizing the conduct of Rawat in this matter. While noting that his conduct was against professional ethics, the Court left it open for the applicant to file a complaint against him under the Advocates Act..As far as the Senior designation was concerned, the Court held,.“This conduct is not accepted from a common prudent person, much less a Senior Advocate. A lawyer is known for his extra ordinary knowledge/intelligence. A bonafide mistake is excusable, but a mistake committed deliberately is inexcusable. From the material available on record, as also from the statement of Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate it would reveal that it was not a bonafide mistake committed by Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, rather it was a deliberate act. .…As far as a Senior Advocate is concerned, he is always considered on a highest pedestal and it is expected from a Senior Advocate to act ethically in accordance with the provisions contained in the Advocates Act. But, Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate failed to maintain the dignity, moral and high ethics of a Senior Advocate and acted in unethical manner.”.Thus, Justice Singh concluded that Rawat, through his conduct, had forfeited the distinction conferred upon him by the Court..“In the opinion of this Court, he does not deserve to continue as a Senior Advocate.”.The matter was directed to be placed before Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court KM Joseph, for him to constitute the Full Court, which will determine the fate of Rawat’s Senior designation..Rawat has hit back at the disparaging remarks made against him in the judgment. Speaking to Bar & Bench, he stated that his appearance did not amount to professional misconduct..“Way back in 2009, a lawyer had asked me to argue an impleadment application in a matter involving Power Grid Corporation. Back then, I used to appear in the Supreme Court, and used to occasionally appear in the High Court. Gurbachan Singh was advocate Sudhir Chaudhary’s client, and Chaudhary asked me to argue it. So, I did that and went back to Delhi..The current matter is an appeal against the lower court’s order, and the 2009 matter was an impleadment application in a writ petition. As a Senior Counsel, unless a client pays me a retainership, it is not like I cannot appear against him for all time to come.”.Rawat also says that it is not for the High Court, but for the lawyers’ bodies, to determine professional misconduct..“How can one declare there was misconduct without proving me guilty? The Bar Council of India or the Bar Council of the state has to determine that.”.He also points out to an incident that may have rubbed the judge the wrong way. Rawat narrates an incident that took place during the boycott of Justice Singh’s court in January..“There was a boycott of this Court after he [Justice Singh] started misbehaving with each and every counsel. Being a senior member of the Bar, I was asked to address the Bar at a meeting. I said that the Bar and the Bench must work together, and any decision must be taken unanimously..Some people might have miscommunicated what I said to the judge. The next morning, the Power Grid matter was listed as the first item before Justice Singh. He did not allow me to give a background of the case, and made some comments against me. After that, he reserved judgment, and from that day onwards, I stopped appearing before him.”.According to Rawat, it was Justice Singh who urged the petitioner (Gurbachan Singh) to file the application against him..“The next day he caught the petitioner [Gurbachan Singh] and asked him to file an application against me. When I came to know of this, I said that he has never been my client, he was the client of Sudhir Chaudhary; he has not paid me any retainership. So why should I reply to the application when I am not guilty of anything?.Can a judge do like this? Does he have the jurisdiction? How does it amount to misconduct if I have not replied? I have informed the Chief Justice that such an order has been passed.”.Standing his ground, Rawat says that he will challenge the judgment passed against him..“I will challenge that judgment. It is unheard of. Everybody is against him, because he has been abusing and harassing lawyers who appear before him. That is why they boycotted his court.”.Read the judgment:
The Uttarakhand High Court is witness to a controversy brewing between the Bar and the Bench..Justice Lok Pal Singh, whose court was boycotted by lawyers in the state earlier this year, has called upon the Full Court to decide whether or not Senior Advocate Avtar Singh Rawat should be stripped of his designation on grounds of professional misconduct..A judgment to this effect was passed while hearing a land acquisition dispute involving Power Grid Corporation of India, for whom Rawat appeared..The case was an appeal filed by one Gurbachan Singh, whose land was acquired by the Corporation for the purpose of carrying on construction activities. Aggrieved by the compensation received for the acquisition, Singh had approached the High Court..Justice Singh ultimately decided that the petitioner was entitled to statutory interest on compensation awarded due to delay in payment of compensation and awarded costs of Rs. 2,50,000 to him..Towards the end of the judgment passed in February this year, things take a turn for the worse for the counsel representing the Corporation..While dealing with an application filed by the petitioner (Singh) seeking disciplinary action to be taken against Rawat, the Court makes some rather strong remarks against the Senior Advocate..It was taken on record that Rawat had previously appeared for the petitioner in the present case, in a similar litigation filed against Power Grid Corporation of India in 2009. The fact that he was representing the opposite side in this petition, was in the opinion of the judge, unethical..In an order passed on January 11 this year, the Court had given Rawat an opportunity to file his objections to the averments in the application. Then, he had submitted that he was not the Advocate-on-Record for the 2009 matter, since he was engaged as a Senior counsel. However, the Court found that Rawat was not a designated Senior Counsel at that point. Despite the opportunity granted by the Court, Rawat did not withdraw himself from the case and argued the matter on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India against his previous client in the same subject matter..The Court did not hold back in criticizing the conduct of Rawat in this matter. While noting that his conduct was against professional ethics, the Court left it open for the applicant to file a complaint against him under the Advocates Act..As far as the Senior designation was concerned, the Court held,.“This conduct is not accepted from a common prudent person, much less a Senior Advocate. A lawyer is known for his extra ordinary knowledge/intelligence. A bonafide mistake is excusable, but a mistake committed deliberately is inexcusable. From the material available on record, as also from the statement of Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate it would reveal that it was not a bonafide mistake committed by Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, rather it was a deliberate act. .…As far as a Senior Advocate is concerned, he is always considered on a highest pedestal and it is expected from a Senior Advocate to act ethically in accordance with the provisions contained in the Advocates Act. But, Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate failed to maintain the dignity, moral and high ethics of a Senior Advocate and acted in unethical manner.”.Thus, Justice Singh concluded that Rawat, through his conduct, had forfeited the distinction conferred upon him by the Court..“In the opinion of this Court, he does not deserve to continue as a Senior Advocate.”.The matter was directed to be placed before Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court KM Joseph, for him to constitute the Full Court, which will determine the fate of Rawat’s Senior designation..Rawat has hit back at the disparaging remarks made against him in the judgment. Speaking to Bar & Bench, he stated that his appearance did not amount to professional misconduct..“Way back in 2009, a lawyer had asked me to argue an impleadment application in a matter involving Power Grid Corporation. Back then, I used to appear in the Supreme Court, and used to occasionally appear in the High Court. Gurbachan Singh was advocate Sudhir Chaudhary’s client, and Chaudhary asked me to argue it. So, I did that and went back to Delhi..The current matter is an appeal against the lower court’s order, and the 2009 matter was an impleadment application in a writ petition. As a Senior Counsel, unless a client pays me a retainership, it is not like I cannot appear against him for all time to come.”.Rawat also says that it is not for the High Court, but for the lawyers’ bodies, to determine professional misconduct..“How can one declare there was misconduct without proving me guilty? The Bar Council of India or the Bar Council of the state has to determine that.”.He also points out to an incident that may have rubbed the judge the wrong way. Rawat narrates an incident that took place during the boycott of Justice Singh’s court in January..“There was a boycott of this Court after he [Justice Singh] started misbehaving with each and every counsel. Being a senior member of the Bar, I was asked to address the Bar at a meeting. I said that the Bar and the Bench must work together, and any decision must be taken unanimously..Some people might have miscommunicated what I said to the judge. The next morning, the Power Grid matter was listed as the first item before Justice Singh. He did not allow me to give a background of the case, and made some comments against me. After that, he reserved judgment, and from that day onwards, I stopped appearing before him.”.According to Rawat, it was Justice Singh who urged the petitioner (Gurbachan Singh) to file the application against him..“The next day he caught the petitioner [Gurbachan Singh] and asked him to file an application against me. When I came to know of this, I said that he has never been my client, he was the client of Sudhir Chaudhary; he has not paid me any retainership. So why should I reply to the application when I am not guilty of anything?.Can a judge do like this? Does he have the jurisdiction? How does it amount to misconduct if I have not replied? I have informed the Chief Justice that such an order has been passed.”.Standing his ground, Rawat says that he will challenge the judgment passed against him..“I will challenge that judgment. It is unheard of. Everybody is against him, because he has been abusing and harassing lawyers who appear before him. That is why they boycotted his court.”.Read the judgment:
