Advocates should not suppress material facts: Bombay High Court refuses parole after lawyer makes misleading statement

29th June,2021

Advocates should not suppress material facts: Bombay High Court refuses parole after lawyer makes misleading statement



The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench refused to grant emergency parole to two convicts in the 1996 Bombay Blast case, claiming that the petitioners' lawyers made false statements and failed to disclose the correct legal position to the court in order to deceive the court and obtain a favourable ruling (Asgar Kadar Sheikh & Anr. v. Jail Superintendent). A bench of Justices VM Deshpande and Amit B Borkar emphasised that as officers, the lawyers must make correct declarations and not withhold material facts in order to obtain favourable rulings. The Bench agreed right away that courts frequently rule on complicated issues based on comments made by attorneys, assuming that they are correct and true. "We are of the view that in a given case, it may be due to the advocate's negligence, but the consequences would be an erroneous judgement having precedential value, possibly requiring the constitution of a Larger Bench to correct the error of law which crept in due to failure on the part of the advocate," the Bench said. The Court also stated in its ruling that each advocate must receive a message to be responsible and careful in what they bring to the Court. The Court stated, "Advocates are a class with a unique complex of duties to their clients and to the Court."
It went on to say that as a Court officer, an Advocate must bring the proper position of law to the Court's attention, whether for or against either side. "Even if there is a decision against him, it is the advocate's responsibility to bring it to the Court's attention. He could later distinguish it based on the facts of the case, or even argue that the decision does not establish correct law "According to the order. The Court refused to grant immediate release to the petitioners based on the facts and circumstances, citing the fact that they had not surrendered on previous occasions. The Court further pointed out that their convictions were for specific acts, which, when combined with other crimes (violence with dangerous weapons, mischief by fire, and explosives with the purpose to cause harm), amounted to significant offences.