Delhi High Court Takes Action Against Advocate for Misconduct
The Delhi High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against an advocate accused of suppressing critical facts in a property dispute case, as detailed in the case Harjeet Singh Mendiratta v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora led the proceedings, emphasizing the gravity of the advocate’s actions. The court sternly highlighted the ethical responsibilities of a lawyer, stating, “An advocate is under a duty not merely to advance the cause of a client but also to act as an officer of the Court, to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings, to prevent resort to unfair practices and to refrain from fuelling litigation.”
Allegations of Professional Misconduct
The advocate in question, known as Kalpana, acted as a power of attorney for her husband, the petitioner in a family property inheritance dispute. The petitioner’s sister accused him of several criminal actions, prompting him to seek the quashing of the criminal proceedings at the High Court. However, it was revealed that Kalpana had an inherent conflict of interest due to her personal involvement in the case.
Justice Arora remarked, “The record demonstrates that this dual role has blurred the distinction between an advocate’s professional obligations and her personal interest in the litigation.” Notably, Kalpana failed to disclose that an identical petition had been previously dismissed in 2012. The current petition falsely claimed there had been no prior filings.
Repeated Abuse of Judicial Process
The court found that Kalpana had habitually misused court procedures by submitting multiple non-maintainable applications. In 2025, the court issued a show cause notice to Kalpana, demanding an explanation for her actions. She responded, attributing the oversight to an inadvertent error and denying any intent to mislead.
Nevertheless, the court rejected Kalpana’s defense, noting her awareness of the case’s history. “In this Court’s opinion, where pleadings are drafted, by the filing advocate, with deliberate suppression of material judicial proceedings known to the advocate, such conduct may have the tendency to interfere with the proper administration of justice by preventing the Court from considering the matter in its correct factual and procedural perspective,” the court observed.
More Read
Consequences and Further Actions
The High Court underscored that submitting a petition with a false non-filing declaration is a serious breach of justice. The court further noted that, in 2018, the trial court had dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition due to the advocate’s failure to disclose the prior dismissal but had then opted for leniency, imposing costs of ₹20,000.
Despite the opportunity to make amends, Kalpana did not offer an unconditional apology. Consequently, the court commenced suo motu contempt proceedings and instructed the Bar Council of Delhi to examine her conduct for potential violations of the Bar Council of India Rules. Additionally, Kalpana was barred from representing the petitioner further in this matter, and costs of ₹2 lakh were imposed. Of this, ₹1 lakh is to be contributed to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association and another ₹1 lakh to the Shaurya Foundation Trust.
The legal representation in the proceedings included Advocates Kajal Chandra, Dalip Singh, Hatneimawi, and Suyash Swarup for the petitioner, alongside Advocates T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty, and A Hussain for the Bar Council of Delhi. Senior Advocates Pawanjit Singh Bindra with Ashish Garg and Ashmeet Singh represented the petitioner’s sister, while Advocate Preet Pal Singh appeared for the Bar Council of India. Amicus Curiae Chand Chopra, with Advocate Punishk Handa, assisted the court, and Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya with Advocate Abhijeet Kumar represented the Delhi Police.
