Introduction:

In the case Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1001], the Supreme Court delivered a critical ruling affirming the principles of natural justice, setting aside adverse remarks and disciplinary directions issued by the Uttarakhand High Court against advocate Dushyant Mainali. The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held that the High Court’s actions were unsustainable as the adverse observations were made without affording the advocate an opportunity to be heard. The High Court had accused the advocate of professional misconduct for allegedly misleading a litigant, leading to delays in filing a revision petition, and directed the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The appellant, not being a party to the case or representing any litigant, challenged the order, asserting violations of the principle audi alteram partem. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court stressed the need for judicial restraint, emphasizing that no person can be condemned unheard, reiterating the foundational principle of fairness and procedural justice.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Appellant’s Submissions: The appellant, Dushyant Mainali, through his counsel Mr. Vinod Kumar Shukla and team, contended that the Uttarakhand High Court’s remarks and directions violated the core principle of natural justice. The advocate was neither a party to the case nor representing anyone in the matter, yet adverse observations were made against him, alleging professional misconduct. The appellant argued that such remarks tarnished his professional reputation and were issued without affording him any opportunity to respond to the allegations. It was further submitted that judicial remarks, particularly those questioning an advocate’s integrity or professionalism, should not be made casually or without substantial evidence. Referring to previous Supreme Court rulings, the counsel underscored that courts are bound to adhere to procedural fairness and avoid making observations without following due process. The appellant also highlighted that the principles enshrined under audi alteram partem form the bedrock of justice, and their breach vitiates any such judicial orders.

Respondent’s Submissions: The respondents, represented by Mr. Bankey Bihari, sought to justify the High Court’s observations, asserting that the allegations of misleading a litigant resulting in delays were serious in nature and warranted disciplinary action. It was argued that the Bar Council was the appropriate authority to examine the allegations against the advocate and determine if misconduct had occurred. The respondents emphasized that courts have a duty to ensure ethical conduct among legal professionals to maintain the sanctity of the legal system. However, they could not counter the appellant’s contention that no opportunity of hearing had been provided before issuing the adverse remarks and the disciplinary directions.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the settled legal principle that audi alteram partem—the right to be heard—is an essential element of natural justice. Justice BR Gavai, delivering the judgment on behalf of the bench, observed that the Uttarakhand High Court’s actions were legally unsustainable as the appellant was condemned without being heard. The Court stressed that remarks impugning the professional integrity of an advocate, especially when made in a judicial order, have severe repercussions on their career and reputation. Therefore, such remarks must not be made lightly or without concrete evidence.

The bench relied on established precedents, including Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani and Ors. (2021) and Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors. (2024), wherein similar unwarranted remarks were expunged. In those cases, the same learned judge of the High Court had made adverse comments against advocates without adequate justification. The Court observed that judicial restraint must be exercised when making comments about advocates’ conduct, as such remarks can undermine their professional standing.

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial observations, particularly those capable of prejudicing an individual’s reputation, should be based on concrete evidence and should not be made in a cavalier manner. The bench clarified that courts, while ensuring accountability among legal professionals, must follow established procedures and not bypass the principle of fairness. It further noted that directing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate without affording him an opportunity to defend himself was a clear violation of natural justice.

The Court also stressed that procedural fairness applies to judicial orders as much as it does to administrative actions. “There is no necessity to reiterate that even the Courts, including the highest court of the country, are bound by principles of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard,” the bench observed.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks made against the appellant and set aside the High Court’s direction to the State Bar Council to initiate misconduct proceedings. The Court underscored that courts must exercise caution and restraint before recording adverse remarks against advocates or initiating disciplinary action. It also highlighted that remarks issued without jurisdiction or due process cannot stand in the eyes of the law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s plea, providing much-needed relief and reiterating the critical importance of the principles of natural justice. The judgment serves as a reminder that fairness and procedural justice form the cornerstone of judicial proceedings, and no person, whether a litigant or advocate, can be deprived of their right to be heard.