Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that a litigant, having signed a “vakalatnama”, a document authorising a lawyer to appear on behalf of his client, cannot be permitted to act as a stranger to the actions taken by his counsel in open court, especially when they were intended to mitigate legal damage.According to HC, the averment that the previous counsel was ‘not properly instructed’ undermines the integrity of the legal profession. Justice Sumeet Goel held that accepting such a plea would virtually allow the applicants to abuse the process of law by turning this court into a laboratory for experimental litigation. “It is necessary to detest such vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and courts. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not responded to with necessary firmness. A litigant who misuses the process of law or takes liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should be discouraged from venturing along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence,” the court observed. The orders were passed while dismissing an application for interim bail filed by Ankit Rawal. He sought the recall of a Jan 28 order in which his anticipatory bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn. At that time, his counsel had undertaken before the court that the petitioner would appear before the trial court within seven days and seek regular bail. The case arises from an FIR registered in Panipat, Haryana, involving charges under serious offences, including murder. According to the prosecution, on Sept 29, 2023, one Tasavar, was killed after he was alleged attacked by a group armed with knives, sticks, and other weapons. The petitioner argued that the earlier undertaking given by his counsel was without proper instructions. He contended that he had only authorised withdrawal of the anticipatory bail plea but had not permitted his counsel to make any commitment to appear before the lower court within a fixed timeframe. He also claimed false implication, pointing out that his name did not appear in the original FIR and that his alleged involvement surfaced only through disclosure statements of co-accused. Rejecting the plea, the HC held that the argument of “lack of instructions” was unsubstantiated and appeared to be an attempt to evade the consequences of a judicial order. Justice Goel clarified that the statements made by counsel are presumed to be authorised and binding on the client. “The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar reflect the true intent of the litigant,” the court observed while imposing a cost of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner. MSID:: 129633020 413 |
