‘Advocates Are Not Mere Mouthpieces’: Allahabad High Court on Advocates’ Duty to Advise Clients

Observing that advocates have a duty to discourage frivolous litigation and assist courts with focused and legally substantiated submissions, the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the authority of the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, to issue notices in securitisation proceedings, holding that such powers are clearly vested in the Registrar under the applicable procedural rules.

"The learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief," the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said. 

The petition was filed by Dinesh Kumar Jindal under Article 227 of the Constitution, questioning the validity of a notice dated November 11, 2025, issued by the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in a 2025 securitisation application. The notice required the respondents to appear before the Registrar and show cause why the application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, should not be allowed, while cautioning that failure to appear could result in the matter being decided ex parte.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel contended that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to issue such a notice, arguing that the power to admit, hear, and decide securitisation applications rested exclusively with the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. It was further argued that listing the matter before the Registrar instead of placing it directly before the Presiding Officer caused avoidable delay, which could prove prejudicial in SARFAESI matters where possession and recovery actions are time-sensitive.

Court noted, however, that by the time the petition came up before it on December 18, 2025, the securitisation application had already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on December 1, 2025. As a result, the grievance regarding the matter being listed before the Registrar had already been redressed. Court also observed that the petition failed to disclose any specific legal injury suffered by the petitioner due to the brief interval during which the matter remained before the Registrar.

Despite this, counsel urged the court to examine the issue of jurisdiction, submitting that an action taken without authority could be challenged even in the absence of demonstrable prejudice. Court proceeded to examine the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, particularly Rules 4, 5, 12, 13, 22, and 23, which govern the presentation, scrutiny, registration of applications, and the powers and duties of the Registrar.

On a plain reading of the rules, court held that the Registrar is expressly empowered to receive and scrutinise applications, fix dates of hearing subject to the directions of the Presiding Officer, and issue notices to parties. The rules also authorise the Registrar to deal with matters relating to service of notices and other processes. In this context, court found no legal infirmity in the issuance of a notice calling upon the respondents to appear and file their response, or in warning that failure to do so could result in ex parte proceedings.

Court further remarked that a securitisation application cannot be heard without issuance and service of notice upon the respondents, and that the petitioner’s objection to such notice was effectively self-defeating. It also noted that there was no material on record to substantiate the petitioner’s claim of having sought an urgent hearing before the Tribunal.

Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or grave injustice. Since the Registrar’s action was in accordance with the procedural rules and no failure of justice was demonstrated, the petition was found to be devoid of merit.

While dismissing the petition at the admission stage, court recorded its displeasure over the unnecessary consumption of judicial time, noting the heavy docket before it, and refrained from imposing costs only in view of the petitioner’s counsel being a young member of the Bar.

"It is said that the Bar and the Bench are the wheels of the same chariot. For fast and smooth running of the chariot, it is necessary that all the wheels should move forward at the same pace and one set of wheels should not try to put brakes on the other set of wheels of the chariot," Justice Vidyarthi said. 

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jindal vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another

Judgment Date: January 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi