Nirmla Devi Vs State of H.P. (Himchal Pradesh, Shimla High Court)
It is more than settled that practice of law is not akin to any other business or profession as it involves a dual duty – nay a primary duty to the Court and then a duty to the litigant with the privilege to address the Court for the client.
The legal profession is a noble profession. A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty and not in the spirit of mischief making or money getting.
Thus, what can be taken to be settled is that any compromise with law’s nobility as a profession is bound to affect faith of people in rule of law and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by an advocate has to be viewed seriously. A person practising law has an obligation to maintain probity and high standard of professional ethics and morality.
In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession.
Reverting back to the facts, it would be noticed that even though Vikram Singh was not in the country when the instant petition or for that matter Cr.MP(M) No.706 of 2020 and Cr.MMO No. 246 of 2020 were filed before this Court. Yet, the affidavit on behalf of Vikram Singh filed in support of Cr.MMO No. 246 of 2020 reveals that the same is attested at Shimla showing his physical presence simply to obtain unfair advantage from this Court, that too, by misleading the Oath Commissioner Sh. Rakesh Raghuvanshi, who we have no reasons to doubt, attested the same believing the version put forth by Sh. Maneesh Kumar Bali, Advocate, that his client (Vikram Singh) was very much present outside the Court premises as he was not being permitted to enter the Bar Room due to Covid19 pandemic.
