The Kerala High Court on Tuesday expunged adverse remarks made by a single judge Bench of the Court against a young lawyer for allegedly allowing his client to file an affidavit containing false statements in a bank account freeze case.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed that although the adverse remarks were meant to caution young lawyers about their professional duties, such remarks could permanently affect the lawyer's legal career.
The Court, therefore, agreed to remove such comments from the record.
"No doubt, of course, the judgement speaks with a slightly harsh stone, but we are of the view that it was not intended to be so, but only to caution the counsel so that he will be more careful in the future. With that said, it will not be proper for us to leave the portions of that judgement, which appear to speak against the council without being interfered with, for the singular reason that this will certainly have an impact on his future perpetually," the Court said.
The Court passed the order on a plea by a lawyer (appellant) who had earlier represented a litigant (petitioner) in a plea to defreeze a bank account maintained at Federal Bank.
On August 17, Justice MA Abdul Hakhim dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner had made false statements in a reply affidavit.
The judge proceeded to criticise the petitioner's counsel as well for attesting such false affidavits and emphasised that advocates have a duty to prevent litigants from making false statements in their pleadings.
Aggrieved by the remarks made against him, the petitioner's counsel (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court's Division Bench.
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the appellant-lawyer, submitted today that the said lawyer had only placed documents furnished by his client before the Court and could not be held responsible for the contents of such documents or for how they were subsequently interpreted.
The senior counsel further submitted that although courts may seek to mentor young members of the Bar, criticism should not come at the expense of their professional future.
The Division Bench proceeded to allow the appeal, to the extent of removing the comments earlier made by the single-judge on the appellant-lawyer's conduct.
Before parting with the matter, Justice Ramachandran also orally requested the senior counsel to advise the appellant about the responsibilities of professional advocates.
"We are told, when we step into the corridor of the Bar, never to be identified with the course or with the client; we are expected to be professional," said Justice Ramachandran.
Senior counse Deepak was instructed by advocates Manas P Hameed and Ipsita Ojal.
Standing counsel Mohan Jacob George appeared for Federal Bank.