Introduction:
The Calcutta High Court has expressed strong disapproval over the alleged tampering of a Court order sheet by a lawyer, observing that such conduct strikes at the discipline, dignity and sanctity of the judicial institution. The Court described the state of affairs as “extremely shocking” and held that the conduct of the concerned counsel warranted action for professional misconduct by the Bar Council of West Bengal.
The observation was made by Justice Suvra Ghosh while hearing a contempt application arising out of Noor Alam & Ors. v. Ms. Debahuti Indra, in WPA No. 17592 of 2022. The controversy before the Court concerned the manner in which the name of the alleged contemnor came to be incorporated in an order sheet dated August 24, 2026, even though the liberty granted by the Court to the applicants was confined to correcting the name in the cause title of the contempt application.
The distinction between a Court order and the pleadings or applications filed by parties formed the central issue in the Court’s consideration. The Court noted that on September 9, 2026, liberty had been granted to the applicants/petitioners to correct the name of the alleged contemnor in the cause title of the contempt application. According to the Court, instead of making the correction in the cause title as permitted, the petitioners’ counsel subsequently incorporated the name into the Court’s order sheet dated August 24, 2026.
The Court treated the act as an instance of tampering with a judicial record. What particularly concerned the Court was that the counsel, while explaining how the incorporation had occurred, had allegedly “feigned ignorance”. The Court found the explanation unacceptable in view of the fundamental distinction between a Court-generated order sheet and the cause title of a pleading or application.
The incident led the Court to make broader observations regarding the responsibilities of members of the Bar and the importance of preserving the authenticity of judicial records. A lawyer appearing before a constitutional court is not merely a representative of a private litigant but is also expected to assist the Court and maintain the standards of professional conduct that sustain the administration of justice.
The Court therefore concluded that the conduct of the concerned lawyer persuaded it to hold him liable for professional misconduct. It further observed that the matter required to be “sternly dealt with” by the Bar Council, West Bengal. The Court consequently requested the Registrar General of the High Court at Calcutta to take up the issue with the Bar Council so that appropriate action could be considered under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The order also demonstrates the importance attached by constitutional courts to the integrity of their judicial records. An order sheet records the proceedings and directions of the Court and is fundamentally different from a document prepared or amended by a litigant. Any unauthorised alteration to such a record therefore raises concerns extending beyond an individual dispute because the authenticity of judicial records is integral to public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Arguments of the Parties:
The controversy arose in the context of a contempt application in which the applicants/petitioners had sought to proceed against an alleged contemnor. During the proceedings, an issue concerning the name of the alleged contemnor in the cause title came before the Court. On September 9, 2026, the Court granted liberty to the applicants/petitioners to correct that name in the cause title of the contempt application.
The liberty granted by the Court was specific in nature. It permitted correction of the name in the cause title of the application. The Court’s later consideration indicates that the permission did not extend to making any alteration to an earlier Court order or order sheet. The distinction was therefore significant because the cause title belonged to the application presented by the litigants, whereas the order sheet constituted an official record of the proceedings maintained by the Court.
The Court subsequently noticed that, rather than restricting the correction to the cause title of the contempt application, the name of the alleged contemnor had been incorporated into the Court’s order sheet dated August 24, 2026. The Court treated this as fundamentally different from correcting a pleading or application filed by a party.
The explanation offered by the counsel became an important aspect of the Court’s consideration. The Court recorded that, while explaining the incorporation, the counsel had “feigned ignorance”. The Court’s remarks indicate that it was not persuaded by the explanation offered for the appearance of the name in the order sheet.
The petitioners’ side, therefore, was confronted with a serious procedural issue concerning the manner in which the Court record had been dealt with. The Court’s order does not indicate that the petitioners had been granted permission to modify the contents of the August 24 order sheet. On the contrary, the permission recorded on September 9 related to correcting the name in the cause title of the contempt application.
The Court’s concern was consequently not merely about an incorrect name appearing in a document. It was about the manner in which a Court record had allegedly been altered. The distinction is important because errors in a party’s pleading can ordinarily be corrected through appropriate procedural steps, whereas a judicial order sheet cannot be treated as a document that can be modified by a party or its counsel at will.
On the other side, the Court’s observations effectively reflect the seriousness of the issue from the institutional perspective. Although the material provided does not set out a detailed separate argument from the respondents or the State, the Court itself considered the alleged alteration sufficiently serious to warrant communication to the Bar Council of West Bengal.
The Court was particularly concerned with the professional responsibility of the advocate involved. The observation that a counsel unable to distinguish between an order sheet and a cause title poses a threat to the “discipline, dignity and sanctity” of the institution reflects the Court’s understanding that members of the legal profession have a duty to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The matter thus moved beyond the immediate dispute between the parties. The Court considered the alleged conduct as raising an issue of professional misconduct requiring consideration by the statutory disciplinary authority governing advocates. Rather than treating the incident merely as an irregularity in the contempt proceedings, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Bar Council for necessary action under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Court’s approach also indicates that the responsibility for maintaining the authenticity of judicial records does not rest solely with the registry or judicial officers. Lawyers appearing before the Court are expected to understand the nature and status of judicial documents and to act strictly within the permission granted by the Court.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Suvra Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court took a serious view of the alleged alteration of the Court order sheet. The Court began from the factual distinction between the permission granted on September 9, 2026, and the subsequent conduct attributed to the petitioners’ counsel.
The Court had granted liberty to the applicants/petitioners to correct the name of the alleged contemnor in the cause title of the contempt application. Such permission was limited to the application itself. According to the Court, however, the petitioners’ counsel proceeded to incorporate the name in the Court’s order sheet dated August 24, 2026.
This distinction was central to the Court’s reasoning. A cause title identifies the parties to a proceeding and forms part of the pleading or application placed before the Court. A Court order sheet, on the other hand, records the proceedings, directions and orders of the judicial forum. It is an official judicial record and cannot be treated as though it were a document belonging to a litigant.
The Court therefore characterised the act as “tampering with the order sheet”. The use of this expression reflected the seriousness with which the Court viewed the alleged alteration. The issue was not simply that an incorrect or additional name had appeared in a document. Rather, the Court considered that the name had been incorporated into a judicial record in circumstances where permission had only been granted to make a correction in the cause title of the contempt application.
The Court also took into account the explanation offered by the concerned counsel. It recorded that the counsel had “feigned ignorance” while explaining the incorporation. The Court was evidently not satisfied with this explanation and considered the circumstances serious enough to warrant an institutional response.
Justice Suvra Ghosh observed, “The state of affairs is extremely shocking.” The Court went on to emphasise the professional and institutional implications of the conduct, observing that a counsel who is unable to distinguish an order sheet of the Court from the cause title of an application is a threat to the “discipline, dignity and sanctity” of the institution.
The observation is significant because it places the incident within the larger framework of professional responsibility. The legal profession is closely connected with the administration of justice, and advocates appearing before courts are expected to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. The Court’s remarks underline that the duties of an advocate extend beyond advancing the immediate interests of a client.
A lawyer’s professional role requires adherence to procedural discipline and respect for judicial records. Where a Court grants permission for a particular correction, the correction must remain within the scope of that permission. The Court’s reasoning demonstrates that exceeding the permission granted by the Court, particularly in a manner affecting an official judicial record, can have consequences extending beyond the original proceeding.
The Court accordingly held that the conduct of the lawyer persuaded it to hold him liable for professional misconduct. This was not treated as a mere clerical or procedural lapse. The Court considered the conduct serious enough to require the attention of the statutory disciplinary authority.
The Court specifically observed that the matter needed to be “sternly dealt with by the Bar Council, West Bengal”. The reference to professional misconduct therefore became the basis for further proceedings before the Bar Council rather than the High Court itself attempting to conclude the disciplinary process.
In this regard, the Court requested the Registrar General of the High Court at Calcutta to take up the issue with the Bar Council, West Bengal, so that necessary action could be taken against the counsel under the Advocates Act, 1961. The direction ensured that the alleged professional misconduct would be brought before the competent disciplinary authority.
The Court further directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Registrar General along with a copy of the allegedly tampered order sheet and the order dated September 9, 2026. These documents were considered necessary for the Registrar General to place the relevant material before the Bar Council and facilitate appropriate action.
The Registrar General was also requested to keep the Court informed about the steps taken by the Bar Council in the matter. This direction demonstrates that the High Court intended the issue to be followed through rather than merely recorded in the order.
The Court’s order consequently had two distinct aspects. First, it recorded and condemned the alleged conduct concerning the Court’s order sheet. Second, it initiated an institutional mechanism for examination of the advocate’s conduct by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The significance of the ruling lies in the Court’s emphasis on the sanctity of judicial records. Court orders and order sheets are the formal record of judicial proceedings. Their accuracy and authenticity are fundamental to determining what transpired before a Court, what directions were issued and what rights or obligations may flow from those directions. Any unauthorised alteration therefore has implications beyond the immediate parties.
The Court’s strong language also serves as a reminder that advocates are officers of the Court and are expected to maintain professional standards while conducting litigation. The permission granted by a Court cannot be expanded by implication, particularly when the proposed alteration concerns an official judicial document.
At the same time, the Court’s direction to place the matter before the Bar Council is consistent with the distinction between judicial proceedings and professional disciplinary proceedings. The High Court recorded its finding regarding the conduct and directed that the appropriate disciplinary authority be informed so that necessary action could be taken under the governing law.
The decision in Noor Alam & Ors. v. Ms. Debahuti Indra therefore highlights an important aspect of legal practice: the integrity of judicial records is not a technical formality but a foundational requirement of the justice system. The Court’s intervention underscores that pleadings and applications remain within the control of the litigating parties subject to procedural rules, whereas judicial orders and order sheets carry an entirely different institutional character.
By directing the Registrar General to communicate the matter to the Bar Council and requiring an update regarding the action taken, the Calcutta High Court made clear that alleged interference with a judicial record would not be treated casually. The final disciplinary consequences, however, would lie within the appropriate statutory process before the Bar Council.
The ruling thus places professional accountability at the centre of the controversy. The Court’s observations serve as a reminder that every advocate appearing before a court carries a responsibility to preserve the accuracy of proceedings and to respect the boundaries of judicial authority. The sanctity of a Court’s record is ultimately inseparable from the credibility and dignity of the institution itself.