SC Stays HC's Adverse Remarks Against Haryana's Addl Advocate General in Death of Undertrial

SC Stays HC's Adverse Remarks Against Haryana's Addl Advocate General in Death of Undertrial

The Supreme Court, on February 17, put a hold on the unfavorable remarks made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Additional Advocate General of Haryana in a case involving the death of an undertrial prisoner while his bail application was still pending.

A bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued the interim order in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana.

"All observations of the High Court contained in the impugned order vis-a-vis the Additional Advocate General who appeared in the matter representing the petitioner State are stayed until further orders," the Court ordered.

Before the bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra sought a stay on the observations made against the State Counsel. In opposition to this plea, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam appeared on behalf of the respondent.
 
The High Court made adverse remarks against Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Deepak Sabharwal, in a regular bail application for incorrectly stating that the applicant had filed a second regular bail application while the first one was still pending.
 
It was later revealed that the State Counsel had omitted an annexure that indicated the application was part of NALSA's special campaign for undertrial prisoners.
 
The Court also observed that the counsel had misled the Court regarding the respondent's medical condition.
 
Reprimanding the State Counsel, Justice Manjargi Nehru Kaul of the High Court observed:

"In the present case, the learned State counsel regrettably failed in this fundamental duty. The misleading representation made before this Court not only cast unwarranted aspersions on an Advocate but also raised unfounded concerns about the functioning of the trial Court. Such erroneous assertions created unnecessary suspicion and sensationalism, thereby undermining the dignity and credibility of the judicial process."

Case Details: STATE OF HARYANA v. SUBHASH CHANDER DUTT (DEAD) THROUGH LRINDRA DUTT|SLP(Crl) No. 2182/2025

 
Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy