Advocate's Non-Appearance In Listed Cases Amounts To Professional Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

On July 3, too, despite the matter being taken up after the list was revised, the counsel for the applicant remained absent.

Noting that the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC had already been recorded and that the trial was at its 'conclusive end', the HC observed that the bail application had become 'infructuous' by the efflux of time.

Justice Pahal categorically condemned the advocate's repeated non-appearance in the matter as he remarked thus:

“It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping".

He also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal LL 2021 SC 500 to reiterate that adjournments should not be granted mechanically, and that the courts must act diligently to prevent undue delays in the justice delivery system.

In the Ishwar Lal case (supra), the Supreme Court had urged the courts not to grant repeated adjournments in a routine manner.

The High Court further said that mere pendency of a bail application does not create any rights in favour of the applicant, and such an applicant can't be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency

"The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of the High Court," the Court opined.

The Court also highlighted the broader implications of such conduct as it stressed that precious judicial time is already stretched thin and must not be wasted on 'frivolous and vexatious litigation'.

It added that parties misusing court time may be liable to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself.

"A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that totally unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself," the bench concluded by rejecting the plea.