Lawyer can't claim ignorance of client's case history: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that an advocate cannot plead ignorance about the history of his client's case or petitions related to it when such information is readily available online [Satnam Singh v State of Punjab].

Justice Sumeet Goel remarked such plea of ignorance by counsel may amount to dereliction of professionalism.

"In an era where judicial transparency is bolstered by digital infrastructure, the failure to disclose such material fact is increasingly inexcusable. When the information regarding history of a case and other petition(s) arising out of the same FIR, is readily available via the High Court’s website/public domain, a plea of ignorance by counsel filing the petition borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism," the judge said in an order passed on April 2.

The Court was dealing with a bail petition of an accused who had failed to disclose his earlier attempt to secure bail. His last bail plea had been dismissed as withdrawn.

The Bench took a strong exception to the non-disclosure. It observed that the integrity of the adjudicatory process rests upon good faith. Such aspects assume greater significance when the Court is urged to exercise its discretionary powers to grant bail, it added.

"A petitioner, acting through legal assistance, is burdened with an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts, in a petition for bail, which constitutes a declaration regarding prior bail applications and specific findings recorded therein. This obligation is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive prerequisite, as the adjudication of successive bail plea(s) necessitates evaluation of ‘Change in circumstance(s)’ since the last dismissaal. The significance of disclosing trajectory of prior bail applications can be gauged from the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again mandated for disclosure of such an essential piece of information in bail applications," the Court further said.

The Court acknowledged that the imprisonment of an accused may make it logistically difficult for his lawyer to obtain precise instructions.

However, the Court emphasised that the lawyer would still have to ensure "that the stream of justice remains unpolluted by supressio veri and suggestion falsi (suppression of material facts which may lead to false inferences)."

The Court went on to note that it could have dismissed the bail plea for failing to disclose the accused's earlier bail attempt. However, it considered the bail plea further in the spirit of judicial empathy.

"Taking into account that a petitioner behind bars may occasionally struggle to communicate the nuances of past legal proceedings to his learned Counsel, there exists a possibility that such an omission was inadvertent rather than a calculated attempt to manipulate the Court’s jurisdiction," it said.

Considering the merits of the case as well as the period of incarceration undergone by the accused, the Court granted bail to the accused. However, it also imposed a cost on him for the non-disclosure.

"The petitioner's failure to disclose the previous dismissal is a practice that cannot be outrightly countenanced. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to impose costs of ₹10,000/- for the material non-disclosure of previous bail petition," it said.

Advocate Paramjit Singh Brar represented the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Baljinder Singh Sra represented the State of Punjab.

[Read Order]