Supreme Court of India
SMT. POONAMversusSUMIT TANWAR
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 161
- Decided
- 22 March 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- AFTAB ALAM
Holding
A writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable to challenge the Family Court’s order, as judicial orders cannot be corrected by Article 32 and the order does not violate any fundamental right.
Summary
The petitioners, married on 30‑Nov‑2008, filed a dissolution suit under Section 13‑8(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Delhi Family Court ordered them to wait six months before filing a second motion under Section 13‑8(2). The wife filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a decree of divorce and a direction to waive the statutory period. The Supreme Court held that a judicial order of a Family Court cannot be challenged by a writ under Article 32; the proper remedy is to approach a higher tribunal. The order did not infringe any fundamental right, and the petition was dismissed. The Court also observed that when counsel cannot assist the Court, the petition may be declined, and criticised the conduct of the advocates involved.
Issues considered
- The maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a Family Court order directing compliance with the statutory six‑month period under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether a judicial order can be corrected by a writ under Article 32 or whether the aggrieved party must approach a superior tribunal.
- Whether the Family Court order infringes any fundamental right of the parties.
- Whether the Court may decline to entertain a petition when the advocate on record is unable to assist.
- The professional responsibility of advocates in such proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 142, s. Article 226, s. Article 32
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. Section 13(8)(1), s. Section 13(8)(2)
- Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order IV, s. Order XVIII
Subjects
Article 32Writ jurisdictionHindu Marriage ActStatutory periodFamily CourtFundamental rightsJudicial ordersAdvocate responsibilityNatural justiceSupreme Court
Judgment
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 557
SMT. POONAM A
v.
SUMIT TANWAR
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2010)
MARCH 22, 2010
B
[AFTAB ALAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Articles 32 and 142 - Writ petition against order of Family c
Court by which it asked the parties to abide by s.13-8(2) of
Hindu Marriage Act - HELD: Is not maintainable - Judicial
orders passed by courts are not amenable to be corrected by
issuing a writ under Article 32 - Remedy of a person
aggrieved by decision of a judicial tribunal is to approach the D
superior tribunal for redress and such decision cannot be
circumvented by resorting to Article 32 - Family Court passed
the order strictly in accordance with law and it cannot be said
that the order has infringed any of the fundamental/legal rights
of parties - Besides, it is not generally assumed that a judicial E
decision passed by a court would violate any fundamental
right of a party- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss. 13-8(1) and
(2) - ~udgment. ·
Article 32 and 226 read with Article 12 - Writ jurisdiction
of Supreme Court and High Courts - Scope of - Explained. F
ADMIN/STRA TION OF JUSTICE:
Advocate - Responsibility of - Failure of counsel to
render assistance to Court - HELD: In case counsel for the
petitioner is not able to render any assistance, Court may G
decline to entertain the petition - If a factual/legal issue is not
raised, court should not decide the same as its decision may
be violative of principles of natural justice - In the instant
557 H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A case, petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging
order of Family Court in a petition uls 13-8(1) of Hindu
Marriage Act asking the parties to wait for six months was filed
without any sense of responsibility either by the parties or
their counsel - The proxy Advocates as well as the Advocate-
s on-Record, were unable to explain as to how the writ petition
was maintainable - Such a practice is tantamount to not only
disservice to the institution, but it also affects the
administration of justice - Conduct of all of them has been
reprehensible - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.13-8(1) and
c (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 142 -
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Orders IV and XVIII -
Advocate-on-Record - Practice and Procedure - Natural
Justice.
The parties got married on 30.11.2008. On 9.9.2009
D a petition u/s 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was
filed. The Family Court by its order dated 25.11.2009 held
that the marriage could not be dissolved straightaway
and observed that the parties could file the petition of
second motion uls 13-8(2) of the Act. Aggrieved, the wife
E filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
F HELD: 1.1. It is settled legal proposition that the
remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the
competent judicial Tribunal is to approach for redress a
superior Tribunal, if there is any, and that order cannot
be circumvented by resorting to an application for a writ
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relief under Article
G 32 can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part Ill of the
Constitution and only on the proof of infringement
thereof. If by adjudication by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the right claimed has been negatived, a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not
H
POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 559
maintainable. It is not generally assumed that a judicial A
decision pronounced by a court may violate any of the
fundamental rights of a party. Judicial orders passed by
courts in or in relation to proceedings pending before
them are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ
under Article 32. [Para 9] [566-F-H] B
Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi &
Ors. vs. the State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh)
& Ors. 1960 SCR 138 = AIR 1960 SC 768; Smt. Ujjam Bai
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 1963 SCR 778 =AIR 1962
SC 1621; and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of C
Maharashtra 1966 SCR 744 =AIR 1967 SC 1, referred to.
1.2. The citizens are entitled to appropriate relief
under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution,
provided it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that o
a fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated.
The distinction between a writ petition under Article 226
and the one under Article 32 of the Constitution is that
the remedy under Article 32 is available only for
enforcement of the fundamental rights, while under Article E
226 of the Constitution, a writ court can grant relief for
any other purpose also. Even if it is found that injury
caused to the writ petitioner alleging violation of a
fundamental right is too indirect or remote, the
discretionary writ jurisdiction may not be exercised. More F
so, a writ lies only against a person if it is a statutory body
or performs a public function or discharges a public or a
statutory duty, or a "State" within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution. [Para 7 and 8] [565-G-H; 566-A-C-
D]
G
Daryao & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1962 SCR 574 =
AIR 1961 SC 1457; M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India 2006 (2)
SCR 264 =AIR 2006 SC 1325; A.K. Gopalan vs. State of
Madras 1950 SCR 88 =AIR 1950 SC 27; Bhagwandas
Gangasahai vs. Unjon of India & Ors. AIR 1956 SC 175; H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A Kalyan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1962 Suppl.
SCR 76 =AIR 1962 SC 1183; Fertilizer Corporation
Kamagar Union, Sindri & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 1981
(2) SCR 52 = AIR 1981 SC 344; State of Rajasthan & Ors.
vs. Union of India 1978 (1) SCR 1 = AIR 1977 SC 1361;
8 Anandi Mukta Sadguru Trust vs. V.R. Rudani 1989 (2)
SCR 697 =AIR 1989 SC 1607; VST Industries Ltd. vs. VST
Industries Workers' Union & Anr. 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 438 =
(2001) 1 SCC 298; and State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka
U.D. Karamchari Sanstha 2009 SCR 467 =AIR 2009 SC
C 2249, referred to.
1.3. In the instant case, the Family Court, has passed
an order strictly in accordance with law asking the
parties to wait for statutory period of six months to file
the second motion in the case. In such a fact-situation, it
D is not permissible to suggest that the said order has
violated or infringed any of the fundamental rights or any
legal right of the parties. Therefore, the writ petition is
maintainable. [Para 1OJ [567 -C, DJ
E 2.1. In case the counsel for the party is not able to
render any assistance, the court may decline to entertain
the petition. Further, if petitioner's counsel is not able to
raise a factual. or legal issue, though such a point may
have merit, the court should riot decide the same as the
F opposite counsel does not "have a fair opportunity to
answer the line of reasoning adopted" in this behalf. Such
a judgment may be violative of principles of natural
justice. In the instant. case, the proxy Advocates as also
the Advocate-on-Record have not been able to explain as
to under what circumstances the writ petition under
G Article 32 of the Constitution was maintainable for such
a relief claimed and as to whether the Court has the power
to issue a writ to the court/tribunal to violate a mandatory
statutory provision. However, the Advocate-on-Record
tendered absolute and unconditional apology and
H
POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 561
assured that he will not lend his name merely for filing A
the petition by other counsel in future. [para 3,4, 16 and
17] (564-D; 565-A; 569-E-F]
Thakur Sukhpa/ Singh vs. Thakur K9Jyan Singh & Anr.
1963 SCR 733 =AIR 1963 SC 146; The Bar Council of B
Maharashtra vs. M. V. Dabholkar & Ors. 1976 (2) SCR 48 =
AIR 1976 SC 242; T.C. Mathai & Anr. vs. District & Sessions
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram 1999 (2) SCR 305 = AIR 1999
SC 1385; D.P. Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors.
2000(5) Suppl. SCR 345 =AIR 2001 SC 457; New Delhi
Municipal Committee vs. State of Punjab 1996 (10) Suppl. C
SCR 472 =AIR 1997 SC 2847; Re: Sanjiv Datta 1995 (3)
SCR 450 = (1995) 3 SCC 619; Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary vs.
Suhas Jayant Natawadkar 2009 (16) SCR 518 = (2010) 1
sec 166, relied on ..
D
Mst. Fakrunisa & Ors. vs. Mou/vi lzarus Sadik & Ors., AIR
1921 PC 55, relied on.
2.2. In the case of Manish Goel*, it has been held that
this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of E
the constitution, generally should not issue any direction
to waive the statutory requirement. The instant case is
not the one where there had been any delay in disposal
of the case by the Family Court. The petition has been
filed without any sense of responsibility either by the F
parties or their counsel. Such a practice is tantamount to
not only disservice to the institution but it also adversely
affects the administration of justice. Conduct of all of
them has been reprehensible. [Para 5 and 20] [535-8; 571-
E, F]
G
*Manish Goel vs. Rohini Goel [2010] 2 SCR 414; Prem
Chand Garg & Anr. vs. Excise Co1nmissioner, UP & Anr.
1963 Suppl. SCR 885 =AIR 1963 SC 996; Supreme Court
Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. 1998 (2) SCR 795 =
AIR 1998 SC 1895 and E.S.P. Rajaram & Ors. v. Union of H
.~!
..... !
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A India & Ors. 2001 (1) SCR 203 = AIR 2001 SC 581, relied
on.
Case Law Reference:
[2010] 2 SCR 414 relied on para 5
B
1963 Suppl. SCR 885 relied on para 5
1998 (2) SCR 795 relied on para 5
2001 (1) SCR 203 relied on para 5
c 1962 SCR 574 referred to para 7
2006 (2) SCR 264 referred to para 7
1950 SCR 88 referred to para 7
D AIR 1956 SC 175 referred to para 7
1962 Suppl. SCR 76 referred to para 7
1981 (2) SCR 52 referred to para 7
1978 (1) SCR 1 referred to para· 7
E
1989 (2) SCR 697 referred to para 8
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR438 referred to Para 8
2009 SCR 467 referred to para 8
F
1960 SCR 138 referred to para 9
1963 SCR 778 referred to para 9
1966 SCR 744 referred to para 9
G 1963 SCR 733 relied on para 11
AIR 1921 PC 55 relied on para 12
1976 (2) SCR 48 relied on para 13
H
POONAM v. SUMIT T ANWAR 563
1999 (2) SCR 305 relied on para 14 A
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 345 relied on para 15
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 472 relied on para 17
1995 (3) SCR 450 relied on para 18
B
2009 (16) SCR 518 relied on para 19
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
86 of 2010.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. c
Rajiv Dutta, Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Sandeep Tyagi for the
Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by D
0 RD ER
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for awarding
the decree of divorce, annulling the marriage of the parties E
herein; and/or issue directions waiving the statutory period of
six months pmvided under Section 13-8(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, "The Act, 1955").
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present
case are that the petitioner and the respondent got married on F
30.11.2008 according to Hindu rites in Delhi. They separated
just after two days of their marriage i.e. on 02.12.2008. A
petition for dissolution of marriage by consent being HMA No.
197/09 dated 09.09.2009 was filed under Section 13-8(1) of
The Act, 1955. The Family Court of Delhi, vide order dated G
25.11.2009 accepted the said HMA No. 197/2009 (titled as
Poonam vs. Sumit Tanwar) obseNing as under:-
"7. In view of Section 13(8)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved
straightaway in the present case. As per the statutory
requirement, parties are advised to make further efforts for
reconciliation in order to save their marriage. In case they
are unable to do so, the parties may come up with the
B petition of second motion under Section 13-B(2) of the
Hindu Marriage Act as per law. The present petition under
Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is hereby
allowed and stands disposed of .......... ".
C 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the
present Writ Petition has been filed. The matter came up for
preliminary hearing on 19.03.2010. Mr. A., an proxy counsel,
was not able to explain as under what circumstances, a Writ
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for
such a relief and as to whether the Court has the power to issue
D a writ to the Courtffribunal to violate a mandatory statutory
provision. The learned counsel was al$o not able to explain
under what circumstances a writ petition lies; who is amenable
to writ jurisdiction; and which are the necessary parties in a writ
petition? The matter was passed over and the proxy counsel
E was asked to come along with Mr. B .. Advocate-on-Record,
who had signed and filed the petition. In the second round when
the matter was taken up, another proxy counsel appeared and
introduced himself as brother of Mr. B., Advocate-on-Record.
The second proxy counsel also expressed his inability to render
F any assistance to the Court on any legal issue. Being faced
with an inordinate and unfortunate situation that the matter had
been filed in the Apex Court of the Country and the appearing
counsel was not able to render any assistance, the matter was
adjourned for Monday i.e. for 22.03.2010 and the learned
G Advocate-on-Record Mr. B. was requested to appear in the
Court.
4. Mr. B. learned Advocate-on-Record appeared in Court
today and could not furnish any explanation whatsoever to
H defend the petition, nor he could explain how this petition is
POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 565
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
maintainable. However, he tendered absolute and unconditional A
apology and assured that he will not lend his name merely for
filing the petition by other counsel in future.
5. This very Bench decided a Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 2954/2010 (Manish Goel vs. Rohini Goel) vide B
Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2010 observing that this
Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, generally should not issue any direction to waive
the statutory requirement. The Courts are meant to enforce the
law and therefore, are not expected to issue a direction in C
contravention of law or to direct the statutory authority to act in
contravention of law. While deciding the said case, reliance
has been placed upon a large number of Judgments of this
Court including Constitution Bench Judgments of this Court viz.
Prem Chand Garg & Anr. vs. Excise Commissioner, UR &
Anr. AIR 1963 SC 996; Supreme Court Bar Association v. D
Union of India & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 1895 and E.S.P. Rajaram
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 581.
6. In the said case, a similar relief was claimed, however,
it was rejected observing that statutory period of six months for E
filing a second petition under Section 13-B(2) of The Act, 1955
has been prescribed for providing an opportunity to the parties
to reconcile and withdraw the petition for dissolution and as it
was not a case where there has been any obstruction to the
stream of justice nor there had been injustice to the parties, F
which was required to be undone, this Court refused to grant
the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
7. The citizens are entitled to appropriate relief under the
provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution, provided it is shown
to the satisfaction of the Court that tl'le Fundamental Right of G
the petitioner had been violated. (Vide Daryao & Ors. vs. State
of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1457). This Court has a
".:onstitutional duty to protect the Fundamental Rights of Indian
citizens. (Vide M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India AIR 2006 SC
1325). H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A The distinction in a Writ Petition under Article 226 and
Article 32 of the Constitution is that the remedy under Article
32 is available only for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights,
while under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Writ Court can
grant relief for any other purpose also. (Vide A.K. Gopalan vs.
B State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27; Bhagwandas Gangasahai
vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1956 SC 175; Kalyan Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1183; Fertilizer
Corporation Kamagar Union, Sindri & Ors. vs. Union of India
& Ors. AIR 1981 SC 344).
c Even if it is found that injury caused to the writ petitioner
alleging violation of Fundamental Right is too indirect or remote,
the discretionary writ jurisdiction may not be exercised as held
by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India
AIR 1977 SC 1361.
D
8. More so, a writ lies only against a person if it is a
statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a
public or a statutory duty, or a "State" within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution. (Vide Anandi Mukta Sadguru
E Trust vs. V.R. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607; VST Industries Ltd.
vs. VST Industries Workers' Union & Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 298;
and State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka U.D. Karamchari
Sanstha AIR 2009 SC 2249).
9. It is settled legal proposition that the remedy of a person
F aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial Tribunal is
to approach for redress a superior Tribunal, if there is any, and
that order cannot be circumvented by resorting to an application
for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relief under
Article 32 can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part Ill of
G the Constitution and only on the proof of infringement thereof.
If by adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the right
claimed has been negatived, a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution is not maintainable. It is not generally assumed
that a judicial decision pronounced by a Court may violate the
H Fundamental Right of a party. Judicial orders passed by the
POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 567
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Court in or in relation to proceeding pending before it are not A
amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32 of
the Constitution. (Vide Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed
Amirabbas Abbasi & Ors. vs. the State of Madhya Bharat (now
Madhya Pradesh) & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 768; Smt. Ujjam Bai
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1962 SC 1621; and 8
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967
SC 1)
10. In the instant case, the Family Court, Delhi has passed
an order strictly in accordance with law asking the parties to
wait for statutory period of six months to file the second motion
cl
in the case. In such a fact-situation, it is not permissible to
suggest that the aforesaid order has violated or infringed any
of the fundamental rights or any legal right of the parties.
Therefore, we are not able to understand as under what
circumstances, the writ is maintainable. The learned counsel D
appearing for the petitioner is not able to explain under what
circumstances, the petition has been filed and as to whether
such a petition is maintainable or whether relief of dissolution
of marriage could be sought by the parties directly from this
Court in a case, wherein the marriage had taken place only a E
year and three months ago. The counsel was not able even to
explain that even if the Court considers to issue the writ, to
whom it would be issued as the only parties in the case are
wife and husband, who are seeking the divorce by consent. The
learned counsel is not able to enlighten the Court as to whether F
the Family Court could be impleaded in this petition. He
expressed his inability to answer any question.
11. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh vs. Thakur Ka/yan Singh &
Anr., AIR 1963 SC 146, this Court has held that in absence of
proper assistance to the CG>urt by the lawyer, there is no G
obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the
simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper
assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the
case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it
to the Court to give its decision on those points after going
through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It
is not for the Court itself to find out what the points tot
determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on
8 those points.
12. While deciding the said case, this Court placed
reliance upon the judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa
& Ors. vs. Mou/vi /zaros Sadik & Ors., AIR 1921 PC 55 wherein
it had been observed as under:-
c
"In every appeal it is incumbent upon the appellants to
show some reason why the judgment appealed from
should be disturbed; there must be some balance in their
favour when all the circumstances are considered to justify
o the alteration of the judgment that stands. Their Lordships
are unable to find that this duty has been discharged."
13. In The Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. M. V.
Dabho/kar & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 242, this Court had observed
as under:-
E
"Be it remembered that the central function of the legal
profession is to promote the administration of justice. If
the practice of law is thus a public utility of great ·
implications and a monopoly is statutorily granted by the
F nation, it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously
those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of
the community in him as a vehicle of justice - social
justice .................. Law is no trade, briefs no
merchandise."
G
14. In T.C. Mathai & Anr. vs. District & Sessions Judge,
Thirovananthapuram AIR 1999 SC 1385, this Court observed:
"The work in a Court of law is a serious and responsible
function. The primary duty of a ....... court is to
H administer....... justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if
POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 569
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
adopted; towards the issues involved in the case, can A
cause serious consequences for the parties
concemed ........ ln the adversary system which is now being
followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is
very n~cessary that the Court gets proper assistance from
both sides ................ Efficacies discharge of judicial B
process very often depends upon the valuable services
rendered by the legal profession"
15. In D.P. Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors., AIR
2001 SC 457, this Court has observed as under:-
c
" .......... Mutual confidence in the discharge of d.uties and
cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the
movement of the chariot. As responsible officers of the
Court, as they are called --- and rightly, the counsel have
,an overall obligation of assisting the Courts in a just and D
proper manner in the just and proper administration of·
justice."
16. Thus, in view of th.e above, law can be summarised to
the effect that, in case, the counsel for the party is not able to E
render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the
petition. ·•
17. There is another aspect of the matter. In case,
petitioner's counsel is not able to raise a factual or legal issue,
though such a point may have a good merit, the Court should F
not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not "have
a fair opportunity to answer the. line of reasoning adopted" in
this behalf. Such a judgment may be violative of principles of
natural justice. (vide New Delhi Municipal Committee vs. State
of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2847). . G
18. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in Re:
Sanjiv Datta (1.995) 3 SCC 619 observed as under:~·
"Of late, we have been coming across several instances
which can only be described as unfortunate both for the H
·. '\'
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A legal profession and the administration of justice. It
becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to the notice of the
members of the profession that it is in their hands to
improve the quality of the service they render both to the
litigant-public and to the courts, and to brighten their image
8 in the society. Some members of the profession have
been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the
practice of the profession as is evident from their absence
when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete
and inaccurate pleadings - many times even illegible and
c without personal check and verification, the non-payment
of :court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office
objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties,
et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts
and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt
of the court but do positive disservice to the litigants and
D
create embarrassing situation in the court leading to
avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of .
matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial
system ....... The legal profession is different from other
professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an
E individual but the administration of justice which is the
foundation of the civilised society." (emphasis added)
19. ln Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary vs. Suhas Jayan{
Natawadkar (2010) 1 SCC 166, this Court has taken note of
F the ongoing rampant unethical practice by some of the
Advocateswon-Record, duly enrolled under the provisions of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, as many special leave petitions
are being filed by them being merely as name-lenders, without
having, or taking any responsibility for the case. As a result of
G prevalence of such a practice, in such cases, the Advocates-
on-Record do not appear when matters are listed before the
Court, nor do they take any interest or responsibility for
processing or conducting the case. They also play no role in
preparation of the petitions, nor ensure that requirements of
Rules are fulfilled and defects are cured. If role of an Advocate-
. '~ - ·..
POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 571
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
on-Record is merely to lend his name for filing cases without A
being responsible for conduct of a case, the very purpose of
having the system of Advocates-on-Record would get defected.
In the said case, this Court did not merely dismiss the
petition for not rendering any assistance by the appearing
8
counsel in absence of the Advocate-on-Record, rather issued
notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association and the
Advocates-on-Record's Association asking for suggestions for
improving the system and to compel such mere name-lending
Advocates-on-Record to serve the purpose for which they have
been enrolled. The matter is to come for further consideration C
after those Associations submit their suggestions for
observance and strict adherence to the Rules, as is evident from
the proceedings in that case dated 30.11.2009, 08.03.2010,
15.03.2010 and 18.03.2010.
D
20. The aforesaid facts reveal that application for
dissolution of marriage was filed only on 9.9.2009 before· the
Family Court and the said application was disposed of vide
order dated 25.11.2009 asking the parties to wait for six
months. Thus, it is not a case that there had been any _delay in E·
disposal of the case by the Family Court. The petition has been
filed without any sense of responsibility either by the parties or
their counsel. Such a practice is tantamount to not only
disservice to the institution but it also adversely affects the
administration of justice. Conduct of all of them has been F
reprehensible.
For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.
R.P. Writ Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 32"Sign in to search