Jahanvi Agarwal
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has criticized the behavior of an advocate who made inappropriate comments in court, emphasizing that lawyers should not attempt to pressure the judiciary into issuing favorable decisions to secure their fees.
Justice GS Ahluwalia highlighted that “the profession of an Advocate is not a business or commercial activity”. Lawyers are expected to present their client’s cases using their professional expertise, but they should not treat their role as a business venture. The court is not responsible for ensuring that advocates recover their fees from clients. The court condemned the counsel’s behavior for making “unparliamentary comments”.
Advocate Sukhendra Singh represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly represented the respondents. The petitioner argued that despite being the most qualified firm, they were not awarded a contract following an Expression of Interest & Concept Design Invitation for development and construction work in the state.
The State contended that the petitioner had failed to include the architectural firms that were awarded the consultancy contract, making the petition deficient due to non-joinder of a necessary party. The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the State was distorting the facts and refused to involve the successful firms.
The court agreed with the State’s objection, stating that the successful architectural firms were indeed “necessary parties” for resolving the petitioner’s claims. The court expressed confusion over the petitioner’s counsel’s “arrogant attitude”, given the State’s legal and relevant objection. The court concluded that because the counsel for the petitioner refused to add the successful firms, the petition was flawed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties.
Furthermore, the court noted that when it indicated the order would be dictated in chambers at 4:40 PM, the petitioner’s counsel sought an adjournment, possibly fearing an unfavorable outcome. The court remarked that such a request for adjournment after realizing an unfavorable order might be given is a “glaring example of Bench hunting”. The court stated, “when the prayer for adjournment was refused, certain comments were passed by counsel for petitioner which were unparliamentary and were not expected from a Lawyer”.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, taking into account all the facts and circumstances presented.
Case Name: Kushi & Associates v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 22392/2024
Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice G.S. Ahluwalia