Effective Justice System

 

 

IN THE judgement of the case – Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, delivered on September 20, 2024, Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Chandra Sharma, at the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with “certain sinister cabal of unscrupulous litigants and a coterie of their counsellors, who are always busy in taking undue advantage of the systemic lacunae and in misusing the process of law, in turn damaging the image of the Courts as also of the entire legal fraternity/legal profession.” Referring to the factors contributing to the present worrisome situation, the SC has commented further that the huge quantum of workload in the Courts , limitations of the human agencies in manning the Justice Delivery System and the fertile minds of the unscrupulous elements litigants and their legal counsellors are some of the factors responsible for not allowing the Justice Delivery System to work as effectively and efficiently as it is expected to work. In order to create proper environment for effective and efficient Justice Delivery System, the wrongdoers must fear the law and should be sure of being punished; the innocents must rest assured that they will not be and the victims must be confident that they will get the justice. This is what a citizen of the democratic country like India, governed by Rule of Law would legitimately expects from the Courts, which are called the ‘Temple of Justice. ‘However, often brazen attempts are being made to abuse and misuse the process of law by committing frauds on Courts.

 

The two appeals in this case were sought to be filed in the name of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh. One appeal was filed challenging the judgement and order of December 16, 2019 passed by the Allahabad High Court in an application under section 482 of CrPC filed by the respondent-2, Ajay Katara, whereby the HC had allowed the said application and quashed the entire proceedings in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet of December 5, 2018 in Case No. 410/2014, under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC at Police station Sehaswan, District Badaun in the Court of Additional CJM-II, there. The other appeal of was filed to challenge the order of April 2, 2024 passed in CMR Application 3/2020, whereby the High Court had rejected the said application. On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the respondents 1 and 2 on the application seeking condonation of delay as well as on the SLPs, making it returnable after eight weeks.

 

In the report of the Registry, as per its office record of July 29, 2024, a letter of July 9, 2024 was received from the ‘appellant’ Bhagwan Singh, wherein, it was stated that he had not filed any SLP before the SC and the same was falsely filed in his name. It was also stated in the said office report that an email of July 29, 2024 was received from Advocate Rishi Kumar Gautam that he was appearing on behalf of the appellant – Bhagwan Singh. By way of suggesting corrective measures, the Supreme Court has reminded Advocates about the Standard Professional Misconduct and Etiquettes as contained in Chapter II Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. As stated in the Preamble thereof, an Advocate shall at all times, conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity, may still be improper for an advocate.

 

Though an Advocate is expected to fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, his conduct must conform to the Rules of Conduct and Etiquettes laid down in the said Chapter, both in letter and spirit. The role and duty of the Advocates, particularly Advocates –on-Record are contained in Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. So far as the listing of the names of the Advocates in the Order Sheets is concerned, in response to the order passed by the SC on august 28, 2024, directing the Registry to explain as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates are being shown on the Order Sheets/ record of Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing as an AOR or nor as arguing/Senior counsel. It has been submitted by the concerned officers that the Advocates-on Record have been authorised to put in appearance of the Advocates appearing with on his/her behalf on the portal for filing OnLine appearance in view of Office Circular of December 30, 2022. It is further stated that it is not possible for the Court Masters to recognise every Advocate appearing in the Court rooms by face and therefore, they have to rely upon the appearance put in by the AORs. In case a Senior Advocate is appearing, but his/her name is not reflected in the appearance slip, the Court Masters include their names.

 

The Notice nowhere permits the Advocates –on-Record to mark appearances of the Advocates who are not authorised either to appear or argue the case. Striking a note of caution, the SC has stated that in the long run, if the advocates, who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it will have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online information ought to be submitted of only those Advocates who are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or OnLine. In view of the Notice/Circular of December 30, 2022 and in furtherance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the Supreme Court has directed that the Advocates-on-Record may mark the appearance of only those Advocates who are authorised to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocates-on –Record, after including the change, if any, on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. The Supreme Court has disposed of the appeals in terms of this judgement.