Delhi Court Refers Lawyer's Conduct To Delhi HC, Bar Council For Asking Judge Whether He Was 'Settling Score'

Taking strong exception to the lawyer's conduct, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala in his order noted, “Such kind of response from Sh. Anil Kumar Goswami, advocate, is shocking and compells me to presume that he has come prepared in the court with some different intentions, and I have no second thought that such conduct on the part of an advocate cannot be termed as professional on the parameters of rules framed by Bar Council.”

When the case was listed for cross-examination, the counsel told that the main counsel had gone to his native place and thus, cross-examination could not be conducted. The Court then questioned the counsel as to why he was not prepared for cross-examination while appearing for the accused persons for the last seven hearings.

The counsel responded that he was only a proxy counsel. The Court told him that he had introduced himself as counsel, claiming that he had signed vakalatnama for the accused.

Then, the counsel replied that “koi score settle kar rahe hai kya (are you settling any score?)” and that “mujhe kya malum aapne aur steno ne kya likha” (I don't know what you or stenographer has written).

On checking the vakalatnama, the Court noted that there was no vakaltnama on record with the counsel's enrollment number. It noted that upon showing the vakalatnama to the counsel, he said that it did not have his signature.

On his response, the Court remarked, “It is unfortunate that till date Sh. Anil Kumar Goswami, got marked his presence as counsel, and today he took a somersault and went on to put blame on the court for marking such presence.”

Stating that the counsel cannot be treated as authorized counsel for the accused persons, the Court deferred the cross-examination.

Finding his objectionable, the Court referred the matter to the Bar Council of Delhi and the Delhi High Court. It observed, “However, the conduct of Sh. Anil Kumar Goswami, advocate bearing enrollment no.D-9828/22 is questionable and objectionable. Hence, same is referred to Bar Council of Delhi as well as to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, for assement of the same on the parameters of professionalism expected from a lawyer before the court, and on the parameters of scandalising the proceedings before the court, while making some unwarranted remarks.”

Case title: State v. Brij Mohan Sharma @ Gabbar & ors. (SC No. 162/20)