Court can restrain appearance of advocate based on solid facts: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed it has the power to restrain a person from appearing in proceedings as an advocate, if it feel that such appearance would be illegal, improper, not in keeping with the standards expected of the legal profession and is likely to prejudice a fair espousal and prosecution (Sandeep Kapur v Janak Kapur and Ors)..Single-judge Justice C Hari Shankar, however, added that such a decision by the Court has to be based on solid facts and there cannot be moral policing on the part of the Court..“The attitude of the Court, in such a case, cannot be that of moral police. If an advocate has earlier acted, qua the lis between the parties, in judicial or quasi judicial capacity or even as a mediator, the Court can certainly injunct him from appearing as an advocate in the matter before it. Equally, if the concerned advocate has advised one or the other party, or has been a repository of confidences between the parties, the court may, in an appropriate case, direct that he should not represent the parties before the Court. Such directions, if issued, are essentially intended to allow the purity of the stream of justice to remain unsullied, and are, therefore, fundamentally ex debito justitiae,” it said..The Court was dealing with an application in a civil suit among family members. The applicant had objected to the appearance of advocate SC Singhal who had represented the plaintiffs in one suit and the defendants in another. It was also argued that Singhal was a close friend of the family and had close association with the late father of the parties in dispute. The Court was also told that Singhal had acted as a mediator among parties and had exchanged confidences regarding the dispute.Singhal, however, contended that he had never acted as a mediator between the parties or advised them in the present litigation. But he admitted to his association with the family and the fact that he had handled cases on their behalf..The Court noted that there can be no gainsaying the position in law that an advocate owes to the public, the court, his client and to the opposite parties the highest degree of probity and transparency. However, Justice Shankar added, the Court cannot afford to be hypersensitive in such matters.Dealing with the present case, the single-judge said that while Singhal’s involvement is not enough to restrain him altogether from appearing in the present proceedings, it would be advisable for him, as a member of a profession which aspires to nobility, to introspect and consider whether his continued appearance in the case is in consonance with the highest degree of probity that is expected from an advocate.“The Court is not in a position to pass an order of restraint, as is sought in this application, as, in its opinion, the standard of material that is required for such an order to be passed is lacking. Having said that, it is also correct that Mr. Singhal has, in his reply to the present application, admitted his association with the family and the fact that he has handled cases on their behalf. He has also admitted that, in the meetings in which he was associated, the present case was subject matter of consideration… While this involvement is not, in my view, enough to restrain Mr. Singhal, altogether, from appearing in these proceedings, the court is of the considered opinion that it would be advisable for Mr. Singhal, as a member of a profession which aspires, at all times, to nobility, to introspect, and consider whether his continued appearance in this matter is in consonance with the highest degree of probity that he, as an advocate, is expected to maintain,” read the order..The court added, “There is, after all, a duty that we all owe, to ourselves, higher than that owed to the client, the brief, the opposite party, or even the court. The conscience of the counsel should be the last sounding board,” the Court said..The plaintiff in the case was represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Virmani along with Advocates Jai Sahai Endlaw, Shivek Trehan, Rajat Soni, Pranay Mohan Govil, and Subhoday Banerjee. Advocate SC Singhal appeared for defendants..[Read Judgment]