Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has issued a strong directive criticizing advocates for their repeated non-appearance in listed cases, terming such conduct as professional misconduct and an abuse of the judicial process.
The court of Justice Krishan Pahal was hearing a case titled Smt. Pooja vs. State of U.P., where the applicant’s counsel failed to appear despite multiple adjournments over an extended period.
The court noted the recurring pattern of absence, stating:
“No one is present on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application even in the revised list. So was the case on 31.01.2024, 15.02.2024, 01.03.2024, 06.03.2025, and 10.04.2025.”
Addressing the serious implications of such conduct, the court observed:
“It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in the majority of listed cases, and that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamounts to bench hunting or forum shopping.”
The court highlighted the adverse impact on judicial resources, stating:
“The resources of the Court, which include precious judicial time, are scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits. Valuable court time, which should be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial matters, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation that is misconceived and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.”
Emphasizing the duty of advocates, the court cited an earlier Division Bench judgment:
“Learned advocates, being officers of the Court, owe a duty not only to the Court but also to their clients in getting the cases decided expeditiously to achieve the objective of dispensation of justice.”
Reinforcing the importance of timely justice, the court remarked:
“The time of the Court is precious because it is the public’s time and must be utilised for adjudicating matters which have substance and need to be decided at the earliest. The arm of justice must reach the aggrieved person by dispensing justice speedily.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, noting:
“The Supreme Court has categorically held that courts shall not grant adjournments routinely or mechanically and must not become a party to the delay in the dispensation of justice.”
Concluding on the issue of abuse of process, the court observed:
“Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant. It cannot be allowed to linger for years under the cloak of pendency. The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation.”
The court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned court/authority for necessary information and compliance.
Counsel Appearance: Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A., and Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant, appeared in the case.
Case Title: Smt. Pooja vs. State of U.P.
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
