Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has expunged observations made by the Allahabad High Court upon a counsel's "professional competence" for filing a habeas corpus writ petition following the arrest of a man and rejection of the bail plea.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta provided relief to advocate Yogendra Singh after finding that the high court's observations were not borne out of record and were not warranted.

"The petitioner, who is a lawyer, while drafting the habeas corpus petition for his client has specifically mentioned about the bail application being filed by the writ petitioner(s) and also about the rejection of the same. As such, the observations of the High Court that the petitioner, who is a lawyer, has suppressed the material facts is not borne out of the record," the bench said.

The bench also said that the high court should have given notice to the counsel before making such observations.

"In any case, before making such adverse observations against the counsel, it was necessary for the High Court to have given notice and an opportunity of being heard. Indisputably, this is not done in the instant case. This is, more so, when the High Court has made observations regarding the professional competence of the petitioner," the bench said.

The court also pointed out it is a settled law that any order inviting adverse civil consequences has to be proceeded by the principles of natural justice. 

"On this count also the observations made in the impugned judgment are liable to be struck down. The observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the impugned order, against the petitioner, are expunged," the bench said.

The court said that it waived the requirement of issuance of notice to the other side since no order prejudicial to the interest of the respondents was passed.

The counsel argued the matter in person.

He was aggrieved by the Allahabad High Court's order stating "counsel for the petitioner has wrongly advised the petitioner to move an instant Habeas Corpus writ petition without challenging the judicial remand order, which clearly indicates the professional incompetence of the counsel for the petitioner".

"Not only this, the counsel during this marathon argument of two days never divulged this important aspect of this issue, that petitioner’s bail application was rejected on 11.07.2023. When a counsel is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, he must come with clean hands. We are of the opinion that the counsel for the petitioner without annexing the bail rejection order has made a passing reference, so as to justify his conduct," the high court's division bench had said.

In another impugned paragraph, the high court had concluded, "... he wants to hide something while invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this court, which was purpose and intentional attempt on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to play a hide and seek with the court’s proceedings by concealing the material fact."

The high court had then dismissed the writ petition with Rs 50,000 cost on the petitioner.

Case Title: Yogendra Singh Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr