The Supreme Court recently imposed costs of ₹10,000 on an advocate-on-record (AoR) for filing a petition with factually incorrect grounds [Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear that such non-application of mind cannot be tolerated."Grounds ‘A’ and ‘B’, which are factual grounds, are incorrect and misleading. The learned Advocate-on-Record claims that the grounds have been incorporated in the Appeal by mistake. However, we find that it is a case of non-application of mind by the Advocate who drafted the Appeal and perhaps, these grounds have been picked up from some other Special Leave Petition drafted by the Advocate. We cannot tolerate the Special Leave Petition being filed in such a casual manner," the Court observed in its March 1 order..The matter before the Court concerned a bail plea by a man accused of rioting and an attempt to murder. The Patna High Court had denied earlier denied the accused-appellant bail, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.The top court had granted the appellant interim bail on January 5, which it made absolute in its March 1 order.The Court reasoned that there was no need to take the accused into custody since the chargesheet had been filed and since the accused was reported to be appearing as required before the trial court. "In the event, the liberty granted is misused by the appellant, it will be open for the State as well as the first informant to apply for cancellation of bail," the bench clarified..However, it imposed costs on the appellant's lawyer for the casually drafted appeal and directed him to deposit these costs with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society. .Avoid bulky synopses, says Supreme Court after 60-page synopsis filed in appeal against 6-page HC order.Advocate Satpal Singh (the AoR) and VS Dubey appeared for the accused (appellant).Advocates Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Hardik Choudhary, and Ravi Ranjan represented the Bihar government..[Read order]
The Supreme Court recently imposed costs of ₹10,000 on an advocate-on-record (AoR) for filing a petition with factually incorrect grounds [Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear that such non-application of mind cannot be tolerated."Grounds ‘A’ and ‘B’, which are factual grounds, are incorrect and misleading. The learned Advocate-on-Record claims that the grounds have been incorporated in the Appeal by mistake. However, we find that it is a case of non-application of mind by the Advocate who drafted the Appeal and perhaps, these grounds have been picked up from some other Special Leave Petition drafted by the Advocate. We cannot tolerate the Special Leave Petition being filed in such a casual manner," the Court observed in its March 1 order..The matter before the Court concerned a bail plea by a man accused of rioting and an attempt to murder. The Patna High Court had denied earlier denied the accused-appellant bail, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.The top court had granted the appellant interim bail on January 5, which it made absolute in its March 1 order.The Court reasoned that there was no need to take the accused into custody since the chargesheet had been filed and since the accused was reported to be appearing as required before the trial court. "In the event, the liberty granted is misused by the appellant, it will be open for the State as well as the first informant to apply for cancellation of bail," the bench clarified..However, it imposed costs on the appellant's lawyer for the casually drafted appeal and directed him to deposit these costs with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society. .Avoid bulky synopses, says Supreme Court after 60-page synopsis filed in appeal against 6-page HC order.Advocate Satpal Singh (the AoR) and VS Dubey appeared for the accused (appellant).Advocates Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Hardik Choudhary, and Ravi Ranjan represented the Bihar government..[Read order]