Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Lawyer for Disorganised Case Records
Court expressed concern over advocates’ unpreparedness, noting that such lapses delay justice in already burdened courts
The Allahabad High Court expresses concern over a lawyer's poor assistance and its impact on the speedy justice delivery in a crucial maintenance case
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench recently took exception to the “poor quality of assistance” rendered by a lawyer while hearing a woman’s plea for early disposal of her maintenance case, observing that such lapses hinder the timely delivery of justice in an already overburdened judicial system.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, while deciding a petition filed by a woman under Article 227 of the Constitution, expressed deep concern over the manner in which her counsel, Advocate Sumit Chauhan, handled the records and submissions. The petitioner had approached the court seeking directions for expeditious disposal of her maintenance case pending before the Family Court, Bahraich.
Court noted that the woman’s case, filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in June 2023, had seen an interim maintenance order passed on March 12, 2025. However, when the matter reached the high court, the records were in complete disarray, with key documents, including a copy of the order dated May 23, 2025, missing from the petition.
The judge observed that despite court’s earlier direction on September 16, 2025, allowing counsel time to rectify the record and present the case properly, the advocate failed to do so and instead began his submissions afresh without acknowledging the court’s instruction. “It is indeed a very sad state of affairs where the courts are overburdened with work and several of the learned counsel do not assist the court fairly and to the best of their ability,” the bench remarked.
Pointing to the overwhelming docket, Justice Vidyarthi recorded that on that day alone, 91 fresh cases, 182 other matters, and six miscellaneous applications were listed before his court, which sits for only 300 minutes a day. He further noted that his bench handles a heavy roster, including all minor bail and anticipatory bail matters, CBI and ED cases, and criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs, as well as statutory appeals and transfer applications.
“When such a huge number of cases are being filed before this Court and this Court is expected to clear the entire pendency of bail applications within two months, such poor quality of assistance being provided by Advocates is creating a hurdle in speedy dispensation of justice to the litigants,” the order stated.
Referring to its earlier pronouncements in Banwari Lal Kanchal v. Dr. Bhartendu Agarwal (2023) and Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2025), the court reiterated that lawyers are not only representatives of their clients but also “officers of the court,” duty-bound to assist the judiciary by being precise and organized in their pleadings and submissions.
While acknowledging that courts across the State are functioning under immense workload, Justice Vidyarthi emphasized that applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which concern maintenance for dependents, must be decided without delay. The order sheet revealed that the husband had repeatedly failed to appear before the family court, prompting ex parte proceedings.
Disposing of the petition, the bench directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich to proceed expeditiously with the case, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and ensure that hearings are held at short intervals to secure justice for the petitioner “in accordance with law".
Case Title: Smt. Saba @ Saba Siddiqui vs Shodul Hasan
Order Date: September 18, 2025
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi