In a recent ruling, a penalty has been imposed by the Supreme Court on an advocate-on-record (AoR) for the submission of a petition with factually incorrect grounds. 

The bench, of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, took a stern stance against the casual drafting of legal documents, emphasizing that such negligence cannot be tolerated in the legal profession.

The case in question pertained to a bail plea filed by an individual accused of rioting and attempted murder. Following the denial of bail by the Patna High Court, the appellant sought recourse in the Supreme Court. Despite interim bail being granted on January 5, the court found itself compelled to address the inadequacies in the appeal petition filed before it.

In its order on March 1, the Supreme Court observed that certain factual grounds, labeled as 'A' and 'B,' in the petition were not only incorrect but also misleading. The AoR representing the appellant contended that these grounds were included erroneously, attributing the mistake to oversight. However, the bench was not swayed by this explanation, deeming it a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the advocate responsible for drafting the appeal.

The judges expressed their disapproval of the lackadaisical approach to legal proceedings, stating that the filing of the Special Leave Petition had been done in a careless manner. Such a lax attitude, they emphasized, undermines the integrity of the judicial process and cannot be countenanced.

Despite the deficiencies in the appeal, the Supreme Court decided to grant bail to the appellant, citing the filing of the chargesheet and the accused's compliance with court appearances as mitigating factors. However, the court issued a stern warning that any misuse of the liberty granted would invite repercussions, including the possibility of bail cancellation at the behest of the State or the first informant.

In a move aimed at discouraging similar lapses in the future, the Supreme Court imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the appellant's lawyer for the negligently drafted appeal. The lawyer was directed to deposit this amount with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society, signaling the court's commitment to upholding standards of diligence and professionalism in legal practice.

Case: Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1303 OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 2251/2023).

Click to read/download order.