Advocates Have Dual Responsibility Towards Clients & Towards Court: Allahabad High Court Deprecates Counsel Arguing After Order Dictation

The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that Advocates have a dual responsibility; one, towards the client, and second, towards the Court where they must assist the Court respectfully rather than causing disruptions in the proceedings.

In a case where the counsel for the bail applicant kept on arguing even after the bail was rejected by the Court, Justice Krishan Pahal observed,

“Justice underscores the dual responsibilities of Advocates in a Court of Law. While they must diligently represent and look after the interests of their clients, they also have an onerous duty to maintain a respectful and conducive environment in the courtroom. Advocates should assist the Court rather than cause disruptions, ensuring that the proceedings are orderly and respectful, which ultimately upholds the dignity of the judicial process.”

Applicant had approached the High Court for a second time seeking bail. Since the first bail was rejected and no new ground was shown for grant of bail, the Court rejected the application. Despite the rejection, counsel for the bail applicant continued to argue the case.

Deprecating the advocates behaviour, the Court observed,

“The counsel for the applicant not only continued to argue the case after the order had been passed in open Court but also caused a disturbance and disrupted the proceedings. This behavior is considered criminal contempt of Court, as it undermines the authority and decorum of the judicial process, but this Court is desisting from initiating contempt proceedings. No litigant can be permitted to interfere in the proceedings of the Court after passing of the order.”

Case Title: Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28391 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order