'Advocates Should Assist, Not Disrupt Court': Allahabad HC Pulls Up Lawyer For Causing Ruckus After Bail Denied To Client

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal stressed the dual responsibilities of Advocates in a Court of Law: maintaining a respectful and conducive environment in the courtroom while diligently representing the interests of their clients.

The Court added that the advocates should assist the Court rather than cause disruptions so as to ensure that the proceedings are orderly and respectful, which ultimately upholds the dignity of the judicial process.

In this case, the Court was dealing with the second bail petition of one Sachin Gupta booked under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 66C, 67A IT Act.

The counsel representing him argued that the applicant has been languishing in jail since December 2023, and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the near future as only two witnesses have been examined to date.

It was contended that his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated and thus, he be granted bail. He also assured the court that the applicant would cooperate with the trial and wouldn't misuse the liberty of bail.

The AGA, on the other hand, opposed the bail application.

After hearing counsels for the parties, the Court noted that there is no new ground for pressing the instant bail application except the period of incarceration, and hence, it rejected the bail plea.

Nonetheless, the Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

At this juncture, the Court noted that despite the bail rejection order having been pronounced in open Court, the applicant's counsel continued to argue that the applicant had a case for bail. Thus, he disrupted the court proceedings.

Taking exception to this behaviour and terming the behaviour of the advocate as an act amounting to criminal contempt of court, the Bench nevertheless refrained from initiating contempt proceedings.

"No litigant is permitted to interfere in the proceedings of the Court after passing of the order", the single judge added as he explicitly deprecated the conduct of the advocate.