'Practice Seriously Deprecated': Allahabad HC Takes Exception To Advocate Addressing Court Sans Filing Vakalatnama Or Authority Letter

Update: 2025-08-29 08:35 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Allahabad High Court recently took strong objection to an advocate addressing the Court without any Vakalatnama or authority letter from the client, observing that such a practice is 'detrimental' to the litigants on behalf of whom such an advocate is appearing. A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi deprecated this practice while...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Allahabad High Court recently took strong objection to an advocate addressing the Court without any Vakalatnama or authority letter from the client, observing that such a practice is 'detrimental' to the litigants on behalf of whom such an advocate is appearing.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi deprecated this practice while dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by one Armaan Jaiswal for the production of his father (Shiv Kumar Jaiswal) before the Court.

During the hearing, the Court noted that a lady Advocate, who is not a senior advocate, attempted to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner despite there being no Vakalatnama on record concerning her. The only Vakalatnama on record was in favour of another Advocate.

Another counsel who was physically present before the Court also informed the bench that he was instructed by the Advocate, whose Vakaltnama was on record, that the lady Advocate in question would argue the case.

Strongly objecting to the same, the Bench observed thus:

"…we are afraid as to how any Advocate, who is not a Senior Advocate, appear in a case without having his/her Power/Vakalatnama or authority letter from his/her client and that very Advocate is not junior or senior to the Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama/Power in the case as this practice would be detrimental to the party or parties on behalf of whom he/she is addressing the Court. Notably, in this case, Ms. Nisha Tiwari Advocate, has appeared before this Court in the aforesaid manner on behalf of the petitionerdetenue. So this practice is seriously deprecated in the interest of justice".

On the merits of the case, the Court noted that though the habeas corpus plea had sought production and release of the detenue, medical treatment, proceedings against officials and compensation, the State informed that the alleged detenue had only been called for interrogation, after which he was released.

In light of this, the Court found that prayers for disciplinary action and compensation were 'absolutely misconceived' in a habeas corpus petition. However, liberty was granted to pursue remedies before an appropriate forum.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as infructuous and consigned to the records.

Case title - Armaan Jaiswal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 324

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 324

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News