Dushyant Mainali Vs Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by advocate Dushyant Mainali challenging adverse observations made against him by a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. The observations arose during proceedings concerning condonation of delay in a civil revision relating to an eviction and rent-arrears decree. The High Court had made allegations concerning the advocate’s professional conduct and directed that the matter be referred to the Uttarakhand Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings. The appellant was neither appearing for any party in the proceedings nor indirectly connected with the matter before the High Court.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Neeraj Garg Vs Sarita Rani & Ors., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 92, and its order dated 24 September 2024 in Siddhartha Singh Vs Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11043–11044 of 2024. The Court observed that it had previously disapproved of the same High Court Judge’s tendency to make remarks against advocates.
Reaffirming the principles of natural justice governing adverse judicial observations, the Supreme Court held that even the highest courts are bound by natural justice and that nobody can be condemned unheard. It found the High Court’s approach of making adverse observations against the appellant without providing him an opportunity of being heard wholly unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed that the specified portion of the High Court judgment containing allegations of professional misconduct and directions for disciplinary proceedings against the appellant be deleted and expunged from the judicial record. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of. The Supreme Court’s order dated 25 November 2024 did not set aside the High Court’s separate decision condoning the 226-day delay in filing the civil revision.
Related Judgment: The proceedings originated from the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision condoning a 226-day delay in a civil revision and making adverse observations concerning the advocate. Read Advocate Cannot Face Adverse Judicial Remarks Without Hearing: Uttarakhand HC.
Cases Discussed
- Neeraj Garg Vs Sarita Rani & Ors. — (2021) 9 SCC 92 — Supreme Court. Cited concerning judicial restraint in making adverse observations against advocates.
- Siddhartha Singh Vs Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors. — Civil Appeal Nos. 11043–11044 of 2024, order dated 24 September 2024 — Supreme Court. Cited regarding earlier judicial disapproval of remarks made against advocates.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges certain adverse observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital against the appellant.
3. The appellant is a lawyer by profession. He was neither appearing for any party in the matter nor was he indirectly connected.
4. This Court, in the case of same learned Judge of the High Court on various occasions, including in the reported judgment in the case of Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Ors. reported in 2021(9) SCC 92 and recently in C.A. Nos. 11043-11044 of 2024 titled as “Siddhartha Singh Vs. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors., vide order dated 24.09.2024, have observed with disapproval the proclivity of the said learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against the advocates.
5. There is no necessity to reiterate that even the Courts, including a highest court of the Country, are bound by principle of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard.
6. We are of the considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.
7. In that view of the matter, the following portion of the impugned judgment and order shall stand deleted/expunged from the records:
“All these statements are per se apparently false because there is no prior pending revision, than the one at hand which has been instituted and there is no reason to disbelief the grounds taken by the revisionist in the delay condonation application of the Assurances extended by the counsel Mr. Dushyant Manali. This false assurance extended by counsel for the revisionist as per the opinion of this court is of the view is tentatively and apparently true would amount to be a professional misconduct for which this Court in taking a suo moto cognizance and referring the matter to the bar council to draw an appropriate proceedings disciplinary against the counsel concerned for wrongful extension of information to the litigant due to which the revision had preferred the revision at a belated stage, when the revisionist faced the order passed by the executing court in pursuance to the impugned decree which has been put to challenge in the present revision. The Bar Council is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedures governing with the disciplinary proceedings of the bar council as well as under the provisions of the Advocates Act. Having apparently considered the reasons which has been been given in the delay condonation application, logically this Court is of the view that any litigant blindfoldedly relies upon the statement given by the counsel and he acts upon that and in all the circumstances, it is not necessary that the aid communication made by the counsel to the client has had to be in writing. In that eventuality, prima facie and so far as the revisionist is concerned individually, he cannot be held responsible for delayed filing of a revision when the revisionist counsel Mr. Dushyant Mainali has duped him by making a false statement, which was bonafidely believed by the revisionist. In that eventuality, this Court directs the Registrar General of this Court to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Uttarakhand to draw and appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the professional misconduct on part of Mr. Dushyant Mainali and to conduct and conclude the proceedings against him within a period of six months from today and report back to this Court of decision taken.”
8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
New Delhi
November 25, 2024
Record of Proceedings (separate page in supplied PDF)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15191/2022 — Date: 25-11-2024. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
