Deplorable: Delhi High Court criticises lawyer for raising his voice at trial judge

The Delhi High Court recently underscored that a judge is a judge at every level of the judicial hierarchy and that no judge - whether a trial court judge or a judge in the higher judiciary - can be treated disrespectfully [Sandeep Kumar Vs Kaptain Singh Rathi Through LRs].

The Court made the observation in a November 28 order in which it criticized a lawyer for making high-pitched arguments before a trial court judge.

Justice Girish Kathpalia took critical note of such tendencies by some lawyers who try to overawe judges when they do not have a case on merits.

“In the recent past, it is being observed that when there is no case on merits or the judge concerned is not indulgent and ensures that neither party is able to protract the proceedings, efforts are done by some (though thankfully not all) lawyers to somehow overawe the judge, especially a judge in the District Courts,” the Court stated. 

A November 18 trial court order had chronicled the lawyer's alleged conduct after a request for the further adjournment of a civil case pending since 2016 was refused.

The lawyer is said to have told the trial court judge in a high-pitched voice that he practiced before the Supreme Court, where several opportunities are given for arguments in the interest of justice.

On eventually being given the opportunity to make final arguments later that same day, he is said to have told the trial judge that he will not argue.

The trial court also recorded that a false statement was made that day about whether the lawyer's client (a defendant) had arrived at a settlement in the matter.

The High Court took a dim view of these events.

The Court observed that it is “deplorable” that despite being asked to calm down by the trial court, the advocate continued to address the trial judge in a high pitch.

"It is highly deplorable that despite being asked to calm down, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant continued to address in high pitch, stating that he is practicing in Supreme Court. Not just this, when offered passovers so that final arguments could be heard on the same day, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant audaciously stated that he would not argue the case and that the court is free to hear arguments," it said.

Justice Kathpalia warned that trial court judges cannot be treated this way.

“In my considered view, the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must also include a duty vested in this Court to supervise and ensure that decorum in the District Courts also is not dented in any manner. A judge is a judge, wherever she/he is placed in the judicial hierarchy and cannot be treated in the manner as was done in the present case.”

The Court also noted that the advocate was unable to give an explanation as to why he had made a false statement before the trial court.

The High Court expressed that it was not inclined to entertain the petition before it, which challenged orders by which the trial court had closed the defendant's opportunity to lead evidence.

“I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. Rather, the present petition is completely frivolous and filed with oblique purposes,” the High Court stated.

The advocate, meanwhile, stated that he habitually spoke at a high pitch. He also denied having refused the argue further before the trial court.

"But if that was so, it remains unexplained as to why he did not address final arguments on being called upon," the High Court remarked in response.

The counsel eventually sought permission to withdraw the petition and expressed remorse for his conduct.

Accordingly, the petition and related applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

[Read Order]