NEW DELHI: A recent incident in Delhi’s lawyer’s misconduct, has brought attention to professional misconduct by a lawyer, prompting the court to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Delhi and the Delhi High Court for assessment.
The court’s decision follows a series of events during the hearing of a case related to the North East Delhi riots. The court noted that an advocate was appearing for two accused persons, mentioning himself as their counsel.
The lawyer, Anil Kumar Goswami, was found to have a different enrollment number than the one mentioned in the vakalatnama (authorisation) for the accused persons. Goswami initially claimed to be the counsel for the accused but later stated he was only a proxy counsel, raising suspicions about his intentions.
Published In Public Interest by thebengalurulive.com
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala noted that the advocate marked his attendance as proxy counsel, though earlier he used to mark his attendance as counsel for the accused.
“In these circumstances, Anil Kumar Goswami, advocate, cannot be treated as authorised counsel for the accused persons. Hence, cross-examination of Prosecution witness Inspector Rajeev Kumar is being deferred, subject to a cost of Rs. .2000/- to be paid by each of the accused persons on the next date of hearing,” ASJ Pramachala said.
The court seeks to determine whether Goswami’s actions meet the standards of professionalism expected from lawyers practising before the court.
The court said that the conduct of Anil Kumar Goswami is questionable and objectionable. “Hence, same is referred to Bar Council of Delhi as well as to Honourable High Court of Delhi, for assessment of the same on the parameters of professionalism expected from a lawyer before the court, and on the parameters of scandalising the proceedings before the court, while making some unwarranted,” the court ordered.
During Inspector Rajeev Kumar’s cross-examination, Anil Goswami submitted that the main counsel went to his native place due to an emergency this morning, so the cross-examination cannot be conducted today.
The court asked him why he had not come prepared for cross-examination of the witness when he had been appearing as counsel for accused Pankaj Shukla and Rohit Shukla for the last several dates.
Goswami then retorted that he is just proxy counsel. The court said that he was told regarding his new submission that the order sheets show that he had been appearing as counsel for both accused persons in the past.
The court also reminded him that he himself had introduced himself as counsel, claiming that he had signed a vakalatnama for the accused persons.
Then, he bluntly retorted back saying that “koi score settle kar rahe hai kya” and that “mujhe kya malum aapne aur steno ne kya likha.”
The lawyer’s responses to the court’s queries were deemed unprofessional, with remarks that suggested a lack of regard for court proceedings.
“Such kind of response from Anil Kumar Goswami, advocate, is shocking and compels me to presume that he has come prepared in the court with some different intentions, and I have no second thought that such conduct on the part of an advocate cannot be termed as professional on the parameters of rules framed by Bar Council,” ASJ Pramachala pointed out. (ANI)
About the Author
