'Why Play With Client's Life?': Gujarat High Court Orally Criticizes Lawyer For 30 Non-Appearances In Senior Citizen's Plea

While hearing a senior citizen's plea seeking release of pension, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (August 12) orally expressed its disapproval with the fact that the matter filed in January 2024 had been adjourned at least 30 times due to non-appearance of the petitioner's advocate. 

The court was hearing a man's plea seeking pension and gratuity benefits. 

When the matter was taken up Justice Nikhil S Kariel orally said to the petitioner's counsel:

"How many orders? How many times the matter has been adjourned? Filed in 2024, 30 times the matter has been adjourned. Somebody has come to you, believing that you will file a petition for him for his pension...30 times you don't come to the high court when the matter is called out. Why should I not refer this conduct to the Bar Council?...If you cannot attend the matter why do you play with lives of the client? If you are not able to justify the trust the clients repose in you, why do you take up matters? Don't do it. Don't give the entire system a bad name". 

The high court referred to its June 25 order where it had noted that the matter was filed in January 2024 and thereafter the petition appears to have been adjourned on numerous occasions i.e. at least 27 occasions and even notice had also not been issued till date. The high court had noted that the petitioner's counsel was not present on that day when the matter was called out; it had thus as a last chance listed the matter on July 2. 

The high court thereafter orally said:

"From 2-7-2025 till 12-8-2025 three times the matter was adjourned no advocate appeared. If you cannot appear in matters why do you take up the matters. Don't take it up. An 82-year-old-person saying that 'I have not been paid pension and then you will mention it before another court after a month that he is 82 years old please give him some priority'. As if the entire fault lies with the court". 

The court also asked the counsel that after 50 years what documents would remain with the concerned department with respect to the benefits sought and if the petitioner had approached the department. 

It orally said, "When did you approach the department? In 2023. So 49 years. After 49 years what will be with the department. What additional papers would he have after 51 years?I will not ask them to answer this. After 50 years why should the department do all the running around for you? There has to be some limit...Your client does not have papers. What papers would the department have after half a century?". 

The high court thereafter kept the matter for hearing on Wednesday as first matter on board. 

Case title: KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

R/SCA/2259/2024