The Supreme Court has underscored that a lawyer’s professional responsibility does not stop with representing their own client. Courtesy and restraint must also be maintained towards opposing counsel and the parties on the other side.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that indecent conduct by an advocate within court premises can amount to professional misconduct and may invite action by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India.
“Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises,” the Court observed, making it clear that this obligation extends to opposing lawyers as well as the persons they represent.
The remarks came while dealing with a disciplinary proceeding against an advocate whose licence had been suspended for one year by the Bar Council of India.
The case arose from an incident dating back to 2005. A complaint alleging professional misconduct was lodged against the advocate after he was accused of behaving aggressively towards a client of opposing counsel inside the court premises.
The allegations were serious: the advocate was accused of grabbing the complainant by his collar, assaulting him, abusing him and threatening to kill him in a courtroom toilet. A police complaint was also lodged in connection with the incident.
The initial complaint before the disciplinary authorities was dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not the advocate’s own client. A subsequent review, however, resulted in notice being issued to the advocate.
The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court and remained pending for several years. Since the incident had occurred nearly two decades earlier and the advocate had not initially been given a proper opportunity of hearing, the Supreme Court chose not to send the matter back for another round before the Bar Council.
Instead, given the extraordinary delay, the Bench considered the matter itself.
The Court clarified that disciplinary proceedings based on the advocate’s alleged indecent behaviour were separate from the conduct of the underlying court case. It therefore dealt with the issue of behaviour within the court premises independently.
Taking into account the passage of time, the Supreme Court modified the Bar Council of India’s order and disposed of the appeal by issuing a warning to the advocate.
The ruling carries a broader message for the profession: the standards expected from advocates inside a court extend to everyone they encounter there, not merely the clients who have engaged them.
