Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, June 14, 2025

SC Slams Practice Of Senior Advocates Withdrawing From Cases After Designation

Posted in: Supreme Court
Wed, Jun 11, 25, 17:03, 3 Days ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 26583
SC slams Senior Advocates for unethical disengagement from cases; calls for urgent High Court Bench in West UP amid systemic judicial disparity.

It is most significant to note that in a path-breaking step with far reaching consequences, we see that none other than the Supreme Court itself in a leading case titled Biswanath Kundu vs State through CBI has come down heavily on the emerging reprehensible practice of advocates withdrawing from cases after being designated as Senior Advocates, terming the conduct absolutely unethical and a disturbing new trend within the apex court. It must be mentioned here that the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr Justice SVN Bhatti made the sharp observation during the hearing of this leading case when a matter was called out and no counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant. Upon inquiry, a lawyer present in court – though not appearing in the matter – informed the Bench that the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for the petitioner had recently been designated as a Senior Advocate.

It is worth noting that while taking very serious note of this most disturbing trend, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah criticized the practice where lawyers after achieving the distinction of being designated seniors, stop appearing in cases they had earlier committed themselves to. He also minced absolutely just no words to say in no uncertain terms most directly that:
This is a very new trend, and I think it is unethical on the part of the Bar. If somebody becomes a Senior Advocate, should they abandon the case? They should now assist as seniors. They have taken responsibility. Absolutely unethical practice. There can be just no denying or disputing it!

We also need to note that Hon’ble Mr Justice Amanullah also pointed out that such disengagement appears to be specific to the Supreme Court. He pointed out clearly saying unequivocally that:
In this Court, I have seen this – and in no other Court. It merits just no reiteration that such unethical practice cannot be ever justified or condoned!

While recollecting his own experience, Hon’ble Mr Justice Amanullah said that he had once obtained special permission, including governmental approval, to continue appearing in a matter after being designated as a Senior Advocate. He lamented saying that:
Very unethical practices in the Supreme Court while referring to the growing tendency of disengagement without proper transition or client notification. This is definitely a very serious matter and the Apex Court has very rightly taken very serious note of it.

What also needs to be taken into account is that adding to the concerns, another counsel in court observed that:
It is the responsibility of the Advocate-on-Record to inform the client, coordinate the legal representation, and ensure a smooth procedural handover if unable to continue in the case. The lawyer also pointed out saying that:
It is the duty of the counsel who was advocate-on-record to inform the client, coordinate with him, and get the AOR changed. Hon’ble Mr Justice Amanullah concurred but reiterated the Court’s disapproval of the growing lack of accountability. He further very rightly directed the lawyers present in the court saying that:
Just convey to the counsel that the Court has taken strong sentiment to such a conduct. Absolutely right.

But I must add here that it is certainly high time now and the worst discrimination that has been perpetrated in judiciary itself since last 75 years of completion of Constitution must be addressed at the earliest now! If we jog our memory a little back, we can recall how even the then former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon while he was UN Secretary General had slammed UP as rape and crime capital of India! At first blush, even a layman can point out effortlessly that which State in India needs multiple High Court Benches and which State needs maximum High Court Benches! It is UP which has maximum population more than 26 crores and has maximum number of pending cases and still has only one High Court Bench at Lucknow so near to Allahabad created 77 years ago in July 1948 even though it is West UP which owes for majority of the total pending cases of UP and worst of all the litigants of 30 districts of West UP have been attached with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which means whole night and nearly a day wasted on just travelling alone to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal of Constitution, deepest burial of justice and worst mockery of poorest litigants of West UP since last 78 years of independence yet Apex Court never interferes by taking suo motu cognizance nor Centre ever shows any real interest in addressing it! Dr BR Ambedkar who is founding father of Constitution himself recommended separate Statehood for West UP just like for East UP and Central UP but West UP has not even a Bench!

By the way, the population of West UP is more than majority of the States in India and so also majority of countries in world yet has not even a single High Court Bench! Most utterly disgusting indeed! This in my view is definitely the biggest and so also the most tightest slap on the face of Constitution and what befuddles me most is that Uttarakhand as long as it formed part of UP was denied even a single Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself in mid 1970s most strongly recommended maximum High Court Benches for undivided UP with two Circuit Benches in hilly areas in Nainital and Dehradun yet not created and when people agitated hugely as they had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself was the biggest betrayal of Constitution, deepest burial of justice and so also worst mockery of poorest litigants then after 54 years of independence, separate High Court was given suddenly about 25 years ago on November 9, 2000 at Nainital! By the way, Punjab and Haryana still most astoundingly have a common High Court! We also saw how a main permanent High Court Bench was recommended by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission for West UP about 50 years ago yet not created most distressingly till date even in June 2025!

One is totally clueless as to why Centre and concerned States are not taking any meaningful and decisive steps to create more High Court Benches not even in big States like UP and Rajasthan as both have only one Bench and lawless Bihar most shockingly has none even though the 230th Report of Law Commission of India in 2009 headed by former Supreme Court Judge and an eminent jurist – Late Hon’ble Dr AR Lakshmanan most strongly advocated for creation of more High Court Benches in States and yet even after 16 years only few elite States like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam alone have exclusive privilege of having multiple High Court Benches?

To cut a long story short, the question is whether Centre will ever try to dismantle the monopoly of few elite States in having multiple High Court Benches? No wonder, in the India Justice Report 2025 that was released on April 14, 2025, we see that States like Karnataka with population of just 6 crore get VVIP treatment by being given multiple High Court Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts only created in 2008 rank among the best States right on top and West UP with 30 districts and more than 10 crore people not even a single Bench and UP with more than 26 crore population which is more than Pakistan at 25 crore has just one Bench only and it is a no-brainer that it has been listed in worst category just like lawless Bihar and Rajasthan among others also figuring in the worst category of States! Five south states rank among top performers as for just 3.5 crore people of Telangana, separate High Court created on June 2, 2014 and so also for Andhra Pradesh with just 4 crore population and we know that Andhra Pradesh Assembly just recently approved a High Court Bench in Kurnool but for Punjab and Haryana there is no separate High Court for both the States and so no wonder it figures in middle performer category states!

Still why Parliament never ensures that big States like UP, lawless Bihar and Rajasthan have multiple High Court Benches even after more than 78 years of independence? Parliament cannot be absolved ever from its most exceptional stupidity in doing nothing to set the record straight on this count and bringing them at least on parity with few elite States who have multiple High Court Benches like Karnataka even though its population at 6 crores is more than 4 crores less than West UP alone at 10 crores and more than 20 crores less than UP at 26 crores! No wonder, it is right at the top in the India Justice Report 2025!

But it really speaks volumes of how much discrimination our Centre and so also our Parliament that is both legislature and executive has ensured is perpetrated on big North Indian States like UP, Rajasthan and Bihar in judiciary itself in High Court Benches distribution which makes me hang my head in shame! It would be foolhardy to ignore the ground reality which speaks for itself. Yet Supreme Court also never takes suo motu cognizance of it and as we saw in November 2018 when an Apex Court Bench led by the then CJI Mr Ranjan Gogoi conceded the dire need of a High Court Bench in West UP while listening to a PIL by a woman lawyer KM Chitra dismissed the PIL saying that it was for Centre to decide! How long will a solution to this Bench issue in West UP keep lurking in the shadows?

Will creation of more High Court Benches ensure or hinder the rule of law? No prizes for guessing the clear writing on the wall! Why the most legitimate voice of the litigants of West UP for a High Court Bench has been throttled for so long despite West UP owing for majority of pending cases of UP and contributing to more than 80% of State’s economy? The crux of the problem is: Centre is least interested in taking any pains to seriously resolve this long pending issue which definitely has to be roundly and most strongly condemned!

As I see it, Centre must stop projecting Governor of UP as real villain by putting onus of decision making on Governor! Who is Governor who is usually an outsider appointed by Centre itself? How long will this blame shifting and blame game continue? Till 100 years which is target set for India to become a developed country by PM Narendra Modi? Such flimsy, facetious and false excuses are root cause for West UP not having even a single Bench despite so many compelling arguments in its favour!

By any reckoning, there cannot be ever a bigger tragedy than this that for 78 years of independence we see that West UP has been denied even a single High Court Bench even though it is West UP which owes for majority of the pending cases of UP which is highest not just in UP but is also highest in any other region of India yet mercilessly deprived from having even a single High Court Bench which is undoubtedly most disastrous! What is even most worst is that the litigants of 30 districts of West UP have been most atrociously attached with not even Lucknow where a High Court Bench exists since July 1948 in Eastern UP but attached most stupidly with Allahabad which is more than 250 km away from even Lucknow which means the poorest litigants of 30 districts of West UP have to spend more and travel whole night and nearly a day about 700 to 800 km in average by train to attend court hearings which is plainly unconstitutional just like litigants of hilly areas of undivided UP had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way again till Allahabad in true dictatorial style making the worst mockery of our Constitution and so also of poorest litigants till Uttar Pradesh was partitioned and this was the major reason which political parties never like to concede and judiciary also has been reticent in taking any action in this regard even though it took suo motu cognizance recently in cheating in Mayor elections as we saw in Chandigarh some time back! The trials and tribulations that litigants of West UP have to face due to no Bench in this region even though majority of pending cases are from West UP are simply unending yet most atrociously we see that Centre has done absolutely just nothing to resolve it and media too has utterly failed to highlight it effectively!

The bogey that West UP needs no Bench needs to be debunked! Rather I will ask: What was the dire need for a High Court Bench in Lucknow so near to Allahabad where High Court itself is located yet it has High Court since July 1, 1948? The point to reflect on is: How long will West UP be deprived from having even a single Bench? The most critical question is: How much more time will Centre keep purchasing to settle this long pending High Court Bench issue in West UP?

With a very heavy heart, I want to say that Centre has been most biased in denying West UP even a single Bench! You don’t need a telescope to see that which State should have maximum High Court Benches as it is the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases! How long will Supreme Court be in hibernation mode on this count? It has to be acknowledged with grace that denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP which owes for majority of pending cases of UP which is also highest for any region in India is not only dangerous and deleterious but also most disastrous, most despicable and most discriminatory!

Let us still fervently hope that some Judge in Supreme Court will definitely one day take suo motu cognizance of this worst discrimination of distribution of High Court and High Court Benches in different States and different regions right under the nose of Supreme Court most shamelessly, most senselessly, most surreptitiously and most sinisterly by not allowing even a single Bench in UP in last 78 years even though UP has maximum pending cases among all the States and majority of pending cases from West UP yet not even a single Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench in West UP about 50 years ago and address it in the best possible convincing manner! It brooks no more delay any longer now!

My point is very clear: This definitely cannot under any circumstances continue endlessly! What I find really most troubling and so also most demoralizing is that this key issue directly pertains to judiciary and it is a grave violation of what is envisaged in Article 14 about equality in Constitution yet Apex Court also has most astoundingly and inexplicably desisted in last nearly 80 years of independence in taking a proactive stand on it and in ensuring that West UP has a High Court Bench so that the litigants don’t keep on suffering endlessly!

But I still nurture a glimmer of hope that someday sooner or later it will definitely muster the requisite courage and conviction to honestly speak up most candidly on this also just like it spoke recently on more than half of Judges seat in Allahabad High Court lying vacant and ensure that a High Court Bench is created in West UP at the earliest as was directed also so very commendably by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself about 50 years ago and yet not created till date! This is what I find exactly most bewildering! All what I have stated as aforesaid are enough to drive home the point that West UP is in dire need of a High Court Bench just like Bihar where there is none as it brooks no more delay any longer now!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top