Advocates should not blindly follow unethical instructions from clients: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court recently said that advocates should not blindly follow any unethical or illegal instructions given by their clients and must only provide them with unbiased and honest advice [Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Ors]. .Justice Anil Kumar Upman stressed that the duty of the advocates is not only towards their clients but also towards the court and the administration of justice."An advocate should not blindly follow the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to the principles of justice. Advocates have a duty to act in the best interests of justice and uphold the ethical standards set by the legal profession," the single-judge said..The Court made the comments while expressing concern over the trend of converting civil disputes into criminal cases, particularly in commercial matters."Need of the hour is to stop the inflow of frivolous criminal cases into the legal system. For this, the police should be advised to conduct preliminary enquiry into the case before filing a first information report (FIR)," the Court said.It was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Jaipur Police against a company based in Mumbai. The complaint alleged that the company had failed to deliver certain goods to the complainant despite payment of advance money for it..After examining the facts of the case, the Court questioned how a criminal case had been registered by the Police"When FIR itself disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship which broke, it is not possible for respondent No.2 [complainant] to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of the Indian Penal Code," the Court said while the quashing FIR..In this backdrop, the Court observed that in cases involving long-standing business relations, it was not uncommon for a party to leverage the criminal justice system for unfair advantage."In such situations where business disputes arise, the Indian judiciary provides a robust framework for resolving conflicts through civil litigation. The complainant has the option to seek civil remedies such as damages, injunctions, or specific performance or to file suit to recover the dues, which are better suited to address commercial disputes rather than resorting to criminal prosecution," it added..On the role to be played by advocates in preventing such frivolous litigation, the Court said that a good advocate should never condone criminalisation of commercial matters. "As a lawyer serving the Indian judiciary, it is crucial to prioritize the interests of justice and uphold the principles of professional ethics. This means that an advocate should not blindly follow the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to the principles of justice. Advocates have a duty to act in the best interests of their clients, but this duty is subject to certain limitations," the judgment said. .The Court added that if a client's instructions are in violation of ethical guidelines or if they involve engaging in dishonest or unethical practices, it is the duty of the advocate to advise the client against such actions. "Advocates are expected to provide honest and unbiased advice to their clients, even if it may not align with the client's desired outcome," it said..The single-judge also said that courts should bring heavier sanctions against those who try and abuse the judicial system. "Courts should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings which are essentially arising out of civil or commercial disputes between the two parties as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court ... Police stations can/should not be allowed to work as recovery agent or to make pressure upon one party of the litigation in the garb of criminal investigation to settle the civil disputes," the Court underlined. .Advocates Kapil Gupta, Ajay Gadhwal, RS Sinsinwar, Chitransh Saxena, Vipul Ojha, Anisha Yadav, Nidhi Sharma, Dharmendra Bairwa and Adarsh Singhal appeared for the petitioner.Public Prosecutor Mahendra Meena and advocates Hemant Nahta and Naresh Sharma appeared for the respondents including the complainant..[Read Judgment]