Delhi court flags lawyer's misconduct, refers to

Bar Council

The Karkardooma Court in Delhi has taken a serious view of potential professional misconduct exhibited by a lawyer during the proceedings of a case connected to the North East Delhi riots. This prompted Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala to formally refer the matter for scrutiny to both the Bar Council of Delhi, the regulatory body for lawyers in the capital, and the Delhi High Court, highlighting the court's concern over the advocate's actions and their implications for the integrity of the legal process.

The court's decision was triggered by a sequence of events that unfolded during a hearing. It was brought to the court's attention that an advocate, identified as Anil Kumar Goswami, was representing two individuals accused in the riots case, identifying himself as their primary counsel. However, a discrepancy was discovered concerning his enrollment number, which differed from the number officially recorded in the vakalatnama, the document authorizing him to represent the accused.

Initially, Advocate Goswami asserted that he was indeed the appointed counsel for the accused individuals. This claim was subsequently contradicted when he stated that he was merely appearing as a proxy counsel for the officially engaged advocate. This shift in his representation raised doubts within the court regarding his true intentions and the legitimacy of his presence in the proceedings.

Taking note of these inconsistencies, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala specifically observed that the advocate had previously marked his attendance in court records as the primary counsel for the accused. This was in contrast to his later claim of being a proxy counsel.

In light of these circumstances, ASJ Pramachala delivered a firm pronouncement, stating, "In these circumstances, Anil Kumar Goswami, advocate, cannot be treated as authorised counsel for the accused persons." Consequently, the court decided to postpone the cross-examination of a key Prosecution witness, Inspector Rajeev Kumar. This deferment was made conditional, with a cost of ₹2000 imposed on each of the accused persons, payable on the next scheduled hearing date. This measure underscores the court's disapproval of the situation and its intention to ensure accountability within the legal proceedings. The referral to the Bar Council of Delhi and the Delhi High Court signals a formal request for these higher authorities to investigate the conduct of Advocate Anil Kumar Goswami and take appropriate action, if deemed necessary, to uphold the standards of professional ethics within the legal fraternity.