Advocate must represent grievance of client, not self: Mumbai Court in forceful vaccination case

A Mumbai court recently refused to allow a plea raising grievance against alleged forceful vaccination by prison authorities (Pankaj Koli v. State of Maharashtra & Ors)..The Court also reprimanded the lawyer in the case for furthering his own grievance instead of raising grievance of his client.This was after the Court found out that the lawyer had not filed the plea based on the instructions of the client.The applicant, Pankaj Koli, informed the Court through his application that after his conviction for raping of a minor, he had been taken to the Mumbai Central Prison where he was allegedly vaccinated against his wishes. Koli sought for an enquiry against the police and prison authorities for forcibly vaccinating him while he was against it..The prison authorities justified their stand, submitting on affidavit that the the officials had been complying with the directions of the Bombay High Court in the suo motu plea pertaining to rise in COVID cases in prison which stated that prisoners have to be compulsorily vaccinated..Advocate Nilesh Oza appearing for Koli, submitted that he was against vaccination and he had also approached the High Court with a writ petition challenging the circulars issued by the Maharashtra government prohibiting persons who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19.Oza added that vaccination did not give any protection from Coronavirus..Based on line of the arguments, the Court reprimanded Oza for furthering his cause while arguing his client's application. "From the line of his argument it appears that advocate Oza is against the 'vaccination itself'. It is to be noted that the advocate representing party has to plead the grievance of his party. Therefore, there should be grievance of party and not of Advocate," Additional Sessions Judge Sanjashree Gharat said..After speaking with Koli in person, the Court discovered that after he had been taken into custody post conviction, Koli never had a chance to interact with Oza in any manner until August 24, 2021.Even his family came to know about the vaccination given to Koli only on August 24, 2021 in Court. With this information, the Court mused on whose instructions the application had been drafted and filed. .The Court also noted that Koli had never informed the prison authorities that he did not want to be administered with vaccination and hence the vaccination could not be termed as forceful..In light of these observations, the Court found no merit in the application and rejected the same. .[Read Order]