Introduction
In a stern reprimand to the increasing trend of courtroom absenteeism, the Allahabad High Court held that habitual failure to appear by lawyers constitutes professional misconduct and could be a symptom of bench hunting or forum shopping. The Court noted that such behaviour squanders judicial time and postpones justice for bona fide litigants. The decision was given by Justice Krishan Pahal on July 3, 2025, in rejecting a bail application in the case of Pooja v. State of U.P. [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34926 of 2023].
Background
The bail application had been fixed five times in the last seven months, but the applicant’s counsel was never present on any occasion, including the rescheduled date of July 3, 2025. Aggravated by the repeated absence, the Court announced the behaviour as a misuse of the judicial process. It termed the bail prayer as infructuous because the trial had already entered its final stage with the Section 313 CrPC statement being recorded. The case, therefore, became an exemplary illustration of what the Court termed non-serious legal practice, wherein litigation is started but not continued, to clog the courts.
Key points
Professional Misconduct and Abuse of Process
Justice Pahal stated, “Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It is also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.”
Reference to Supreme Court Precedent: The Court drew support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal [(2021) 12 SCC 612], cautioning against the mechanical and automatic granting of adjournments and promoting judicial prudence to secure timely justice.
No Automatic Rights from Pending Applications: The Court ruled that the mere fact of the pendency of an application for bail does not create rights in the applicant, particularly when they do not turn up or give any reason for not doing so.
Duty of Advocates: According to the 2008 ruling in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta, the Court reiterated that advocates are court officers and owe a dual duty towards their clients and the judiciary. “Frivolous litigation merely burdens the Court and robs genuine litigants of the showers of justice at a time when they need it.”
Recent Trends
The Court, in a resolute move, rejected the bail application, deeming it a clear abuse of process and a futile endeavor.
The Registrar (Compliance) is hereby instructed to convey the order to the concerned authorities for prompt follow-up action.
The judgment makes a firm statement to members of the Bar regarding the value of diligence, promptness, and conduct integrity in court proceedings.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court decision in Pooja v. State of U.P. (2025) is a timely intervention to recall the norms of professional behaviour required from the legal community. While the courtrooms struggle with arrears of cases and delayed adjudication, such frequent absences by advocates undermine public faith in the judicial process and deny serious litigants their right to expeditious redressal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the 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 AYUSHI TRIVEDI
