Title: Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa & Ors.
Decided on: 09.08.2023
+ WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7383 OF 2023
CORAM: G. S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner is an advocate with extensive experience practicing in the High Court. The first respondent is the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), while the second respondent is an individual involved in ongoing litigation that was transferred from the High Court to the City Civil Court. The third respondent, added later, is the Bar Council of India. The case centres around an order issued on September 20, 2022, by an advocate member of the BCMG, referring a disciplinary matter for investigation. The petitioner was accused of professional misconduct by the complainant, who alleged that the petitioner identified certain annexures to an affidavit inaccurately. The petitioner, Ms. Geeta Shastri, was not the advocate-on-record but only identified the deponent of the affidavit.
Issues:
Whether the allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner hold merit?
Whether signing of an affidavit by the Petitioner implies her attesting to the accuracy of the affidavit’s contents?
Contentions:
Ms. Shastri contended that she had merely identified a deponent’s signature on an affidavit and that this did not translate to her attesting to the accuracy of the affidavit’s contents. She emphasized that she was not the advocate-on-record and therefore should not be held liable for the content of the affidavit. Ms. Shastri argued that the complainant’s interpretation would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a situation where advocates would be reluctant to identify signatures, thus undermining the legal process.
On the other hand, the Respondents argued that Ms. Shastri’s identification of the signature on the affidavit implied her endorsement of the accuracy of the affidavit’s content. Since Ms. Shastri identified the signature, she assumed personal responsibility for any false statements or inaccuracies in the affidavit. This extended to allegations of perjury, forgery, and other misconduct.
Decision:
The court rejected the complainant’s argument and ruled in favor of Ms. Shastri. The court held that an advocate’s identification of a signature on an affidavit does not translate to personal responsibility for the content of the affidavit. The court emphasized that advocates, in this context, are not attesting to the accuracy of the affidavit’s content, and their role is limited to identifying the signature. The court referred to Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which specifies that affidavits should be confined to facts that the deponent can personally prove.
The court also expressed concern about the increasing trend of litigants filing complaints against opposing counsel as a means of intimidation, which undermines the legal profession’s ethical standards and the fair administration of justice. The court highlighted the importance of protecting advocates from such unwarranted threats and pressures.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
