Bombay High Court orders Bar Council to take action against advocate who flouted court orders

The Bombay High Court recently directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take stern disciplinary action against an advocate who repeatedly flouted court directions during a cyber fraud hearing [Dhiren Roy v. Cyber Police & Ors.].

Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata noted a rising trend among lawyers to willfully disobey court orders.

Hence, it categorically refused to delete the adverse remarks made by the Court against advocate Mandar Lalsare.

“In recent times we have observed a rising trend amongst advocates to willfully and contumaciously disregard or blatantly disobey the orders of this court or to mislead it and thereby undermine the authority of the court,” the bench said. 

The bench further observed that judicial forgiveness had fostered this casual attitude.

“It appears to us that, the advocates carry a perception that they could willfully disregard or disobey the court orders and get away with it by offering some excuse or the other and if caught and faced with the ire of the court, tender an unconditional apology either by themselves or through a senior counsel. Courts have, until now, time and again been large hearted and forgiven such acts. Such leniency over the years has emboldened the said advocates to treat the orders of the court casually, wholly undermining its authority,” the Court stated.

The judges emphasised that such defiance must be checked.  

“We find it imperative to arrest this decline and prevent the authority of Courts being trampled by unscrupulous litigants and Advocates who have scant respect for the Court proceedings,” the order said. 

The controversy arose on September 28 during the hearing of a petition filed by a cyber fraud victim who had lost his entire life savings of ₹1.4 crore. 

The bench found Lalsare giving evasive answers via video conference while representing Kotak Bank.

The judges specifically summoned the advocate to appear personally in the afternoon session alongside a senior bank official. 

Advocate Lalsare failed to appear in person, choosing instead to send a newly enrolled proxy counsel and a deputy branch manager.

The advocate claimed he had another matter at the Aurangabad Bench, an excuse the court found entirely unacceptable.

The bench expressed deep displeasure over this casual conduct.

It, however, reserved the right to initiate criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The junior advocate was later pardoned after tendering an unconditional written apology.

During the subsequent hearing on September 30, Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni urged the court to pardon Lalsare and expunge the critical remarks from the official records.

The bench firmly rejected this request. It directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to take stern action to weed out errant advocates.

[Read orders]