Nagpur: High court raps lawyer for pleading without black coat in online hearing

NAGPUR: The proliferation of online systems has led to some complacency, particularly among youngsters, as they study or work from homes. A young lawyer had to face the music from the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Monday, when he appeared in an online hearing without a black coat and neckband.
After sighting him without the formal attire, a division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor stopped the hearing and censured him for neglecting rules of the judiciary.
The lawyer had engaged a senior counsel, who also reminded him to adhere to formal dress code before the hearing, after seeing him in a plain white shirt. The senior counsel told the judges that his junior couldn't get the time to wear the black coat, but that failed to cut the ice.
“The senior advocate submits that he has already reprimanded his junior. But regrettably, the latter continues to appear on the screen without the uniform. He shall do well to follow the dress code, etiquette and manners and till he follows the same, the final hearing of this petition is deferred,” the judges tersely stated, before adjourning the hearing by two weeks.
The lawyer suffered another setback when the judges charged his client, a student, of “bench hunting” and slapped a cost of Rs5,000 on her before rejecting her civil application.
“We find that the application suppresses material facts relating to observations and findings recorded by this court in the March 24 order. All these facts and concealments give a prima facie impression that as there was a change of bench during summer vacation, the petitioner may have taken her chance before another court in spite of rejection of her similar prayer by us on March 24,” the judges said.
Adding that such an attempt on the petitioner’s part was “improper”, they said she should have approached the Supreme Court or file a review petition challenging the March 24 order, if she was really aggrieved.
“But, she didn’t do so and took her chance by making a similar prayer with concealment of material facts from another bench. Such an attempt on her part deserves to be repelled forthwith. Even on merits, this application contains nothing but repetition of earlier submissions, which were considered and rejected by this court. It is not maintainable and thus can’t be allowed,” the justices said.