A Kerala High Court bench stressed that the justice system’s reliability hinges not solely on correct judicial rulings but equally on the ethical behavior and trustworthiness of attorneys involved in proceedings.
Expungement of Adverse Observations
A recent ruling by a two-judge panel, consisting of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji, addressed a request to remove certain adverse comments made about an attorney in a previous judgment, which was issued on August 17, 2026. The attorney was not disputing the main findings of the case, but rather sought to have the negative remarks about him removed, as they were made in his role as counsel for the petitioner.
The appellant argued that an advocate could not automatically be held responsible for the truth or otherwise of statements made by a client in an affidavit. Reliance was placed on Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra [2026]. The attorney’s counsel also argued that comments from judges intended to guide young lawyers should not harm their careers.
Professional Responsibilities of Advocates
The two-judge panel emphasized the importance of lawyers making honest disclosures to the court when they are aware of relevant information. However, the panel also recognized that lawyers typically act based on instructions from their clients, as well as documents and affidavits provided by them. If a lawyer has no reason to doubt the truthfulness of a client’s statements, they should not be blamed.
Related Post: Court limits regulator’s access to documents
Nevertheless, the court stated that lawyers have a responsibility to carefully review documents provided by their clients and assess their contents before submitting them to the court. Where circumstances give an advocate reason to suspect improper conduct or misleading statements, the advocate must exercise caution, make appropriate disclosures and uphold the standards expected of an officer of the court.
The Court explained that these were the professional responsibilities the Single Judge had sought to emphasise, albeit in an admonishing tone. “Inevitably, if not always, the responsibility of a judgment to be accurate is not merely on the judge concerned, but on the system itself – of which learned Counsel enjoy a position of trust. Axiomatically, to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery mechanisms, their actions have to be at the acme of certitude, credibility, probity, righteousness and rectitude.”
Maintaining Professional Standards
The Court stated that although the language used in the earlier judgment was harsh, it was not intended to be caustic but was meant to caution the advocate and remind him of his professional duties. Nonetheless, the observations could have an unintended impact on the advocate’s future and should not remain unmodified. The Court directed that the portion of paragraph 5 of the Single Judge’s judgment beginning with the words “It is well settled” and continuing to the end of that paragraph be expunged.
The Court expressly clarified that the impugned judgment would remain unaltered in all other respects.