spinner

Supreme Court demands top-notch professionalism and legal expertise from Senior Advocates.

Last Updated: 16-12-2023 09:29:31am
Supreme Court demands top-notch professionalism and legal expertise from Senior Advocates.

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision involving a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, underscored the paramount importance of maintaining a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen by Senior Advocates appearing before the court. The case centered around the arrest of a woman holding the position of Deputy Secretary in the office of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh. Following her arrest, she was remanded to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody, prompting her to file an appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court's rejection of her bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

A two-Judge Bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, articulated the Court's expectation that every party seeking justice must make full and accurate disclosures of material facts. The Bench highlighted the pivotal role of advocates, emphasizing that, as officers of the court, they are obligated to assist the court impartially in administering justice. The Court particularly emphasized that designated Senior Advocates, appearing in the highest court of the country, are held to an even higher standard of professionalism. It was expressed that their conduct should serve as an example for advocates practicing in High Courts and District Courts across the nation.

The Bench acknowledged that advocates act based on instructions from their clients but asserted that their duty goes beyond merely presenting arguments. They are also responsible for diligently verifying facts from the case record, employing their legal acumen to ensure accuracy and fairness in their submissions. The Court's statement reflected a strong stance on the role and ethical obligations of advocates, especially Senior Advocates, who play a crucial role in shaping legal discourse at the highest level.

In the case at hand, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal represented the appellant/accused, while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju appeared for the respondent/ED. The appellant, dissatisfied with the decisions of the Special Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court rejecting her bail application, appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

A significant aspect of the Court's observations related to the appellant's attempt to challenge the order based on misrepresented facts. Despite crucial documents, such as the Chargesheet and Cognizance order, not being part of the High Court proceedings, the appellant's Advocate-on-Record provided a Certificate at the end of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) without verifying the facts. The Court noted a bold attempt to misrepresent the facts and criticized the appellant's effort to allege errors by the High Court in not considering documents that were not part of the record.

The Supreme Court expressed disbelief that the battery of lawyers representing the appellant did not notice the apparent discrepancy. The Court emphasized that the Certificate issued by the Advocate-on-Record and the Affidavit filed at the end of the SLP carry legal sanctity. The attempt to challenge the High Court's order on grounds that were not even part of the proceedings was strongly deprecated by the Court.

Despite the Court's previous warnings and specific attention drawn to the inconsistencies in the appellant's submissions, the appellant persisted in filing a smartly drafted affidavit that evaded addressing the court's queries. The Court, condemning such attempts, asserted that the appeal deserved dismissal based on these grounds alone.

The legal team representing the appellant included Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, along with a team of Advocates and an Advocate-on-Record. On the respondent's side, ASG S.V. Raju led the representation with a team of Advocates. The Court's decision not only highlights the importance of integrity and accuracy in legal proceedings but also serves as a reminder of the high ethical standards expected from Senior Advocates appearing before the Supreme Court.

TAGS: Bench Expectations Accused Special Court Chargesheet Cognizance Order Certificate


Latest Posts

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...

Supreme Court Denies Interest on Delayed Pension for

Supreme Court Denies Interest ...