Two practicing advocates from Gujarat, Mr. Sandipkumar M Patel and Mr. Viral J Vyas, have lodged a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking redressal following a directive issued by the Gujarat High Court. This directive pertains to an inquiry into allegations of misconduct, specifically the alleged forging of a vakalatnama on behalf of their client.

The genesis of this legal saga can be traced back to a case concerning Mr. Bharatbhai Dhirubhai Ahir and the seizure of his Toyota Innova car under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Both the advocates were representing Mr. Ahir in this matter before the Gujarat High Court. However, during the course of the proceedings, a person purporting to be Mr. Ahir appeared before the bench and vehemently denied engaging the petitioners as his legal representatives or authorizing the filed petition.

In response to this discrepancy, the High Court, presided over by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, took immediate cognizance and, based on prima facie evidence indicating potential forgery, issued a directive for an inquiry. The court instructed the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court to authorize an officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar to lodge a complaint and conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged misconduct.

In light of this development, the aggrieved advocates, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza, took recourse by filing a petition in the Supreme Court seeking remedial action. They sought a stay on the High Court's order, arguing that the directive directly impinged upon their fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to reputation and dignity) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) of the Indian Constitution.

At the crux of the advocates' plea lies the contention that the High Court's directive failed to adequately consider the explanations provided by them during the proceedings. They maintained that the petition was filed through a known source, and the identity of the deponent was established in good faith. Furthermore, they underscored their unblemished professional record spanning 16 years, emphasizing that this should have been taken into consideration before initiating any inquiry that could potentially tarnish their hard-earned reputation within the legal fraternity.

The advocates further argued that the High Court, in its interim order, seemingly disregarded their submissions and instead relied solely on the statements of the individual who denied being their client. They posited that a fair assessment of the circumstances, including their longstanding credibility and the context of the case's adjournments, should have been undertaken before ordering an inquiry that could have far-reaching ramifications on their professional standing.

The matter was mentioned before the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, on April 10 to hear the arguments presented by Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza on behalf of the petitioners. The bench was urged to expedite the listing of the matter, underscoring the urgency and significance of the legal issues at hand.

Case: Sandipkumar M Patel & Anr vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.