Supreme Court shocked at lawyer's refusal to argue before High Court, consequent cancellation of client's bail

The Supreme Court was recently shocked to find that lawyer had refused to argue a matter before a bench of the Allahabad High Court which led to the cancellation of bail by the High Court for his clients [Krishna Kumar and ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal criticised the lawyer's actions, but made it clear that the High Court could not have passed a bail cancellation order on that ground."We are shocked to note that the advocate appointed by the appellants was bold enough to tell the concerned Bench of the High Court that he would not like to argue the matter before that Bench ... Needless to add that only on account of default by the advocate for the appellants, the appellants ought not to have been penalized by passing a drastic order of cancelling bail," the Supreme Court said..The bench was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court's order cancelling bail earlier granted to three men after their the advocate had refused to argue the matter..On December 1, the top court restored the bail granted by the High Court as an interim measure, until the disposal of the criminal appeal.It went on to explain that the High Court could have explored other courses of action instead of cancelling bail simply because the lawyer refused to argue the case. "This Court has repeatedly taken the view that in a given case where an unwarranted adjournment is sought by the advocate representing the accused in the appeal against conviction, the Court has an option of appointing an amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the accused and hearing the appeal on merits. The said course could have been adopted by the High Court," the Supreme Court said. .The Court also decided to issue a show-cause notice to the advocate who had allegedly refused to argue the case before the High Court, one Anil Kumar Shrivastava."Prima facie, we are of the view that the conduct of the advocate recorded in the impugned order may amount to infamous conduct and it may also, prima facie, amount to a criminal contempt," the apex court observed.The bench asked the lawyer to remain personally present in Court on January 22, 2024.It also asked for a copy of the notice to be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Allahabad, so as to effect its service on the advocate..Advocates Viraj Kadam, Soumya Dutta, and Siddhant Upmanyu appeared for the three accused whose bail was cancelled by the High Court (appellants).Advocates Shantanu Krishna, Sidharth Sarthi, Tulika Mukherjee, Purnendu Bajpai, and Aastha Shrestha appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government and the informant in the case..[Read order]