LI Network
Published on: December 16, 2023 at 16:00 IST
The Supreme Court emphasized that while advocates settle pleadings and argue in court based on client instructions, they bear the duty to diligently verify facts from the case record.
The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, stressed the expectation of a high standard of professionalism and legal acumen, particularly from designated senior advocates.
The judgment stated, “Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.”
The observations were made in connection with the rejection of the bail plea of Saumya Chaurasia, the former deputy secretary to Chhattisgarh’s ex-Chief Minister, Bhupesh Baghel, in a money laundering case.
Chaurasia had appealed against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s denial of bail, arguing that scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had been dropped.
However, discrepancies arose when it was revealed that the chargesheet, a crucial document, was not presented before the high court despite earlier claims by the petitioner’s lawyers.
The Supreme Court, citing its rules, emphasized that special leave petitions should be confined to the pleadings before the lower court and any necessary annexures.
The bench criticized the oversight in verifying facts by Chaurasia’s legal team and underscored the importance of maintaining a high standard of accuracy in court proceedings.
While asserting that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, the Court imposed an extraordinary cost of one lakh for the incorrect statements made in the appeal. The directed cost was to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.
Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8847 of 2023