DIPAK KALICHARAN KANOJIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant had circulated the matter for urgent listing. When a query was raised by the Court whether there was any urgency as to take the matter out of turn, Ms. Anjali Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant went totally off the tangent and made allegations that this Court is giving priority to certain matters and to certain advocates and thus insinuated that the Court was not fair and was bias. She also complained that the litigants do not get justice from the Court. She went on with the tirade in full presence of the litigants and lawyers without allowing the Court to proceed with the matter in hand or to take up the other matters. She further threatened that she would lodge a complaint before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice about the conduct of this Court and further sought time to place the facts on record on an affidavit.

(2.) The advocate has every right to protect interest of his/her clients. An advocate is answerable to his/her clients and the frustration of an advocate when the matter gets adjourned for whatsoever reason or does not reach the board is understandable. At the same time, an advocate as an Officer of the Court is under an obligation to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. There is no room for arrogance and there is no license to intimidate the Court, make reckless accusations and allegations against a Judge and to pollute the very fountain of justice.

(3.) Ms. Anjali Patil, the advocate for the Applicant has grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when she made imputations of partiality and unfairness in open Court. The conduct was highly unprofessional and unbecoming of an advocate. It has to be borne in mind that casting scurrilous aspersions not only has inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the judiciary but also has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.