The actions of a lawyer who adamantly declined to present before an Allahabad High Court bench confused the Supreme Court during the hearing of a criminal appeal.
The court stated that they would address the advocate’s behavior individually and added, “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.”
The court believed that the advocate’s actions, which were documented in the contested order, could be considered both notorious behavior and, on the face of it, criminal contempt.
Nonetheless, the division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mitha noted that it is unjust to punish the appellant by revoke his bail due to the actions of his attorney.
“This Court has consistently held the position that, in a particular case, if the accused’s advocate requests an unjustified postponement in the appeal against conviction, the Court may choose to designate an amicus curiae to support the accused’s position and hear the appeal on its merits. The High Court could have chosen to follow the aforementioned path,” the court declared.
As a result, the Court threw out the second portion of the contested order and gave the advocate a notice to show cause so that he could continue to appear in court.