The Supreme Court today stayed an order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court calling for the withdrawal of the senior designation of Avtar Singh Rawat..The Bench of Justice AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, while granting stay in the petition filed by Senior Advocate Avtar Singh Rawat, also issued notice to the Uttarakhand High Court..Represented by Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, Rawat challenged the order passed by Justice Lok Pal Singh, which had called for Rawat’s senior designation to be stripped from him. A judgment to this effect was passed while hearing a land acquisition dispute involving Power Grid Corporation of India, for whom Rawat had appeared..It was taken on record that Rawat had previously appeared for the petitioner Gurbachan Singh in a plea filed against Power Grid Corporation of India in 2009. The fact that Rawat later represented the opposite side in a later 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….…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.”.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.”.The petition, drawn by advocate KK Tyagi and filed by SR Khare, contends that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Ont he issue of conflict of interest, the petition states,.“…firstly the dispute was completely different and independent from the present dispute secondly the matter originally belongs to Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary Advocate who had engaged me as a Senior to Argue the case (admittedly the petitioner was not designated senior counsel on that date), however as per the practice Uttarakhnad High Court every arguing counsel except those who are designated senior has to sign the Vakalatnama in order address in the court. It is in this context that the petitioner made a statement before the Hon’ble High Court that petitioner was only engaged as senior to argue the Writ Petition, which has no relation with the present dispute.”.Read the SLP:
The Supreme Court today stayed an order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court calling for the withdrawal of the senior designation of Avtar Singh Rawat..The Bench of Justice AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, while granting stay in the petition filed by Senior Advocate Avtar Singh Rawat, also issued notice to the Uttarakhand High Court..Represented by Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, Rawat challenged the order passed by Justice Lok Pal Singh, which had called for Rawat’s senior designation to be stripped from him. A judgment to this effect was passed while hearing a land acquisition dispute involving Power Grid Corporation of India, for whom Rawat had appeared..It was taken on record that Rawat had previously appeared for the petitioner Gurbachan Singh in a plea filed against Power Grid Corporation of India in 2009. The fact that Rawat later represented the opposite side in a later 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….…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.”.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.”.The petition, drawn by advocate KK Tyagi and filed by SR Khare, contends that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Ont he issue of conflict of interest, the petition states,.“…firstly the dispute was completely different and independent from the present dispute secondly the matter originally belongs to Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary Advocate who had engaged me as a Senior to Argue the case (admittedly the petitioner was not designated senior counsel on that date), however as per the practice Uttarakhnad High Court every arguing counsel except those who are designated senior has to sign the Vakalatnama in order address in the court. It is in this context that the petitioner made a statement before the Hon’ble High Court that petitioner was only engaged as senior to argue the Writ Petition, which has no relation with the present dispute.”.Read the SLP:
