Lawyers must behave decently towards opposite parties too, not just their own clients: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a lawyer’s duty to behave decently inside court premises extends not just to his own client, but to opposing lawyers and even the parties he is appearing against [Sudhendu Prakash Gautam v. SL Chaudhary].

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing an appeal filed by a lawyer, challenging a Bar Council of India (BCI) order suspending him from legal practice for a year for allegedly assaulting and threatening a litigant inside court premises.

“Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing,” the Court held.

The case arose from a complaint filed by one SL Chaudhary against advocate Sudhendu Prakash Gautam. Gautam had been representing a company named M/s Recon Copier System Private Limited in a case against Chaudhary before a Delhi Labour Court.

Chaudhary alleged that after an application was dismissed by the Labour Court in 2005, Gautam caught Chaudhary by the collar, beat him, abused him, and threatened to kill him inside the court premises. Chaudhary further alleged that Gautam forced him to withdraw a separate complaint he had filed against him, threatening that he (Chaudhary) would be “removed from this world.”

Chaudhary lodged police complaints over the incident, and separately filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi. This complaint was initially dismissed in 2009, on the ground that no case of professional misconduct arose since Gautam was not Chaudhary’s own lawyer but opposing counsel.

However, this dismissal was later recalled in 2011 after Chaudhary’s review petition was allowed, and the matter was taken up afresh by the Bar Council of India, which went on to suspend Gautam from legal practice for a year in 2012.

Gautam challenged this suspension before the Supreme Court, arguing that he had not been given a proper hearing. He pointed out that when the matter was taken up by the BCI on July 7, 2012, his request for an adjournment had been refused, and the case was heard the very same day.

The Court agreed that Gautam had not been properly heard before his suspension was ordered. However, it declined to send the case back to the BCI for a fresh hearing, noting that nearly 21 years had passed since Chaudhary first filed his complaint.

The Bench also drew a distinction between the criminal allegations against Gautam and the question of professional misconduct before it.

The Court noted that the alleged assault and threats had already been reported to the police separately, and that this aspect of the incident was not something the Bar Councils had any role in examining.

At the same time, it held that a lawyer’s indecent behaviour inside court premises was, on its own, a valid ground for the Bar Council to take up a case of misconduct, and that Gautam’s case could not be thrown out merely because he wasn’t representing Chaudhary himself.

Weighing the procedural lapse in Gautam’s hearing against the seriousness of the underlying conduct alleged, the Court modified the BCI’s order.

In place of the year-long suspension, it issued a warning to Gautam that he must always behave properly in court premises, towards opposing counsel, his own clients, and the opposing party alike.

Gautam was represented by advocates Sarvam Ritam Khare, Kushagra Sharma, and Saransh Maheshwari.

Chaudhary was represented by advocates Nidhi, Dhruv Maheshwari, and Om Kumar.

Advocate Radhika Gautam represented the BCI.

[Read Order]