Background of the Incident
The incident in question occurred during the hearing of a criminal miscellaneous petition, where the Division Bench noted that the advocate allegedly misbehaved, used undisciplined language, failed to maintain courtroom decorum, and exited the courtroom in a disruptive manner. These observations were formally recorded in the court's order, potentially tarnishing the advocate's professional reputation.
Advocate's Response and Petition
In response to these adverse remarks, the advocate filed a petition seeking their expunction. He asserted his unblemished professional record spanning nearly two decades and expressed profound respect for the judiciary. Through an affidavit, he contended that he had not engaged in any indiscipline or misbehavior and emphasized that the remarks were made without affording him an opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Court's Analysis and Reference to Precedents
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the matter, referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani and Others, which underscores the necessity for judges to exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary comments on an advocate's conduct, especially when such remarks are irrelevant to the case's adjudication. The Supreme Court in that case emphasized that any adverse comments made without providing the concerned advocate an opportunity to explain or defend could unjustly harm their professional reputation.
Observations on Advocate's Conduct
While acknowledging the advocate's duty to maintain courtroom decorum and professionalism, Justice Dhand noted that any perceived misconduct should be addressed through appropriate channels, ensuring the advocate is given a fair chance to respond. The court emphasized that advocates, as officers of the court, must present their arguments logically and control their emotions, refraining from displaying disagreement through facial expressions or gestures. However, any punitive or adverse remarks should not be made without following due process.
Decision to Expunge Remarks
Considering the advocate was not provided an opportunity to defend himself before the adverse remarks were recorded, the court concluded that such comments should be expunged to prevent unwarranted damage to his professional standing. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring that individuals are not condemned without being heard.
Implications for Legal Professionals
This judgment serves as a reminder of the mutual respect and decorum that must be maintained between the bench and the bar. It highlights the importance of providing individuals an opportunity to explain or defend themselves before any adverse remarks are made, ensuring fairness and upholding the integrity of the legal profession.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court's decision to expunge the adverse remarks against the advocate reinforces the judiciary's adherence to natural justice principles. It emphasizes the necessity for judges to exercise restraint and for advocates to maintain professionalism, ensuring that the administration of justice is conducted with fairness and respect for all parties involved.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.