Checkout Forums The Howrah Bar Association (Reg No-B/1L/55127)

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #120534 Reply
    advtanmoy
    Keymaster

      In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and action
    [See the full post at: The Howrah Bar Association (Reg No-B/1L/55127)]

    #120667 Reply
    advtanmoy
    Keymaster

    Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa (1957 AIR 250, 1957 SCR 167)

    “A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be sub mitted on behalf of his client. He may even submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsiff in open court. In suggesting that the Munsiff followed no principle in his orders, the appellant was adding insult to injury; because the Munsiff had merely upheld the order of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and court-fees, which order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalising the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice : such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an individual member of the Bar and a member of the Judicial Service; it brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice.”

    #120672 Reply
    advtanmoy
    Keymaster

    Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash & Ors.

    In Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 577, this Court deprecated the practice of making allegations against the Judges and observed as under: “Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to “terrorize” or “intimidate” Judges with a view to “secure” orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of administration of justice can permit it……..”

    Similar view has been reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal vs. Rajasthan High Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427.

    Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression. It is a practical manifestation of the principle of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression in arguments encourages the development of judicial dignity, forensic skills of advocacy and enables protection of fraternity, equality and justice. It plays its part in helping to secure the protection or other fundamental human rights, freedom of expression, therefore, is one of the basic conditions for the progress of advocacy and for the development of every man including legal fraternity practising the profession of law. Freedom of expression, therefore, is vital Shri Amar H. Manjrekar Smt. Shubhangi A. Manjrekar to the maintenance of free society. It is essential to the rule of law and liberty of the citizens. The advocate or the party appearing in person, therefore, is given liberty of expression. But they equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court proceedings or judicial processes. Any adverse opinion about the judiciary should only be expressed in a detached manner and respectful language. The liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary [vide D.C. Saxena vs. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216].

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
Reply To: The Howrah Bar Association (Reg No-B/1L/55127)
Your information:




%d bloggers like this: