Published On : Thu, Jul 1st, 2021

HC raps lawyer for misleading court, rejects parole plea of two Mumbai blast convicts

Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court

Nagpur: Reprimanding a young lawyer for misleading the court, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected a plea filed by two Mumbai blasts convicts seeking emergency parole, according to media reports.

The two convicts lodged in Nagpur Central Prison – Asgar Kadar Sheikh and Mohd Yakub Nagul – through their lawyer prayed for granting emergency parole in view of amendment to Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules enabling prisoners to be released to curb spread of Covid-19 in jails.

A division bench comprising Justice Vinay Deshpande and Justice Amit Borkar observed that the lawyer made an attempt to mislead the court by suppressing the material fact that both the prisoners are ineligible for being released on emergency parole as they had surrendered late on earlier occasions. The bench pointed out that when lawyers make a statement before the court, it’s assumed that it’s made in their capacity as its officers, and not an effort to get a favourable order by suppressing the material fact or binding precedent.

The media reports further said that Justice Vinay Deshpande and Justice Amit Borkar observed that a large number of matters involving intricate questions of law are often disposed of by courts on the basis of a lawyer’s statement. Them being court officers, normally their statements are accepted as true and correct. “We are of the opinion that the lawyer tried to twist the relevant facts and suppressed the material facts to snatch a favourable order,” the court said.

The judges said that notwithstanding the easy availability of numerous legal software for research, reliance was placed upon High Court judgment which was passed without noticing the earlier full bench judgment. “This is akin to relying on an overruled judgement which results in a waste of time. It may be due to negligence of the lawyer. But the consequences would be an erroneous judgment having precedential value, possibly requiring constitution of a larger bench to correct the error, which crept in due to the lawyer’s failure to perform his duty,” the High Court said.

The bench further said that a message must be sent to each of the lawyers playing a vital role in the justice delivery system to be responsible and careful in what they present to the court. A lawyer must not hesitate in telling the correct position of law when it is indisputable.