The Allahabad High Court, in a reflective decision delivered by Justice Kshitij Shailendra, acknowledged and rectified a prior judicial oversight involving remarks against an advocate. The court, while hearing Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 9 of 2024 in Second Appeal No. 626 of 2006, expunged adverse remarks made against Advocate Siddharth Srivastava, citing a sincere apology and a credible explanation for the unintentional error.
Case Background
The dispute originated from procedural events in a second appeal concerning civil litigation. Advocate Siddharth Srivastava, representing appellants, sought recall of an order dated November 11, 2024, which had included remarks critical of him. The controversy arose due to a failure to inform the court about Justice Shailendra’s past engagement as counsel for one of the parties involved in the litigation—a detail inadvertently overlooked by the advocate and his office.
Counsel for the appellants, including Advocates Manish Kumar Nigam and Rahul Sahai, supported Mr. Srivastava in filing the recall application. The respondents were represented by senior counsels R.K. Misra, Arvind Kumar, Kshitij Shailendra, and Neeraj Agarwal.
Key Legal Issues
1. Judicial Neutrality:
The case raised concerns about ensuring that prior involvement of a judge as counsel in a matter does not interfere with judicial neutrality or create perceptions of bias.
2. Responsibility of Advocates:
The application touched on the duty of advocates to disclose relevant information, particularly concerning past representation by a presiding judge.
3. Fair Process in Correcting Judicial Oversight:
The court had to balance the need for accountability with the acknowledgment of genuine human error.
Observations of the Court
Justice Shailendra took a magnanimous approach in accepting the explanation offered by Advocate Siddharth Srivastava. In his order, the judge stated:
“The explanation offered in the affidavit supporting the recall application is found to be satisfactory. The apology tendered is also accepted.”
The court noted that the omission arose from inadvertence rather than malice, compounded by practical challenges in the preparation of digital cause lists that do not display detailed party or counsel information. It observed that:
“Mr. Siddharth Srivastava is a sincere and courteous counsel who would never knowingly do any act which undermines the majesty of this Hon’ble Court.”
Court’s Decision
1. Expunging the Remarks:
The court allowed the recall application and expunged all remarks made against Advocate Siddharth Srivastava in its earlier order. These remarks were directed to be deleted from the court’s official website and any legal reporting platforms.
2. Transparency in Rectification:
The court directed all platforms that had reported the earlier order to publish a correction reflecting the acceptance of the advocate’s apology and the expunging of the remarks.
3. Reassignment of the Matter:
The case was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for nomination to another Bench, to be heard in December 2024.
