Recently, the division bench of Justice A.S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal of the Supreme Court of India held that the approach of the high court of hearing appeal when the application for suspension of sentence is listed specially when the advocate refused to argue the appeal is bad in law.
During the course of hearing, the Court orally observed that this practice is going on in various High Courts across India.
''This is not a good practice'', the court held that the court is empowered to do so but not in the manner as it has been done in this case. a proper procedure has to be followed.
Moreover, the court ruled that in cases where an application for the suspension of a sentence is scheduled, the court must refer to established guidelines for conducting hearings in such matters.
The court stated in the order that ''Ofcourse the court is empowered to hear the appeal when the application for SOS is listed but a proper notice of at least one month is required to be given.''
The court said that when the advocate appointed by the client refused to argue the appeal in such situations , the court shall appoint advocate and then only the appeal shall be heard.
Further, the Court observed that, for the mistake of the advocates, the litigants shall not suffer.
During the Court proceedings, the Court had stayed the order of the High Court on an earlier date.
Read the previous order
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. B Karunakaran, Adv. Mrs. K Balambihai, Adv. Mr. Ajith Williyam S, Adv. Mr. P Shankar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Parbu S, Adv. appearing for the petitioner.
Case Title : Purushotham versus State of Tamil Nadu
