The High Court of Delhi, in a significant judgment, has ruled that an advocate is bound by the instructions of their client and has no duty to independently verify the truthfulness or veracity of those instructions before representing the client in court. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, thereby upholding the decisions of a learned Single Judge, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), all of which had dismissed a complaint against three practicing lawyers.
The court held that initiating misconduct proceedings against lawyers for representing their clients based on the information provided would undermine the fundamental duties an advocate owes to their client.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a complaint filed by Mr. Chand Mehra against three advocates (respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5) before the Bar Council of Delhi. The BCD, in its order dated October 6, 2023, dismissed the complaint, finding that Mr. Mehra had failed to establish any professional relationship between himself and the respondent-advocates. The BCD rejected the allegation that the advocates should have conducted due diligence on their clients’ claims, stating that the truthfulness of allegations in a pending court matter is for the court to decide, and thus, no professional misconduct was made out.
Aggrieved by the BCD’s order, Mr. Mehra filed a Revision Petition before the Bar Council of India under Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961. The BCI, in its order dated November 11, 2024, also dismissed the petition. The BCI held that no case of ‘professional misconduct’ was established. It observed that under the Bar Council of India Rules, “it is the duty of the Advocate to act on the instructions of their clients and that an Advocate cannot sit and make an investigation of their client’s case before representing such client in the Court of law.”
The BCI further noted that an advocate cannot be prosecuted because their client’s case was found to be false and that no fiduciary lawyer-client relationship existed between the appellant and the respondent-advocates. The BCI also considered and rejected the appellant’s contention regarding the violation of Rule 4 of Section I, Chapter 1, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, clarifying that while the rule restricts an advocate from being a “mere mouthpiece of his client,” it “does not mean that an Advocate has to first ascertain the genuinity of his client’s case before representing them.”
Mr. Mehra then challenged both the BCD and BCI orders through a writ petition, W.P.(C.) No. 4425/2025, before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed on April 15, 2025, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Division Bench, after hearing the appellant in person and the counsel for the respondents, concurred with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had opined that the respondent-advocates owed no fiduciary duty to the appellant, their client’s adversary, and that the complaint did not fall within the purview of ‘professional misconduct’ as contemplated under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Affirming this view, the Division Bench led by the Chief Justice found that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge “cannot be faulted with.” The court unequivocally stated, “it is needless to observe that on the basis of the contents of the complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, no case of professional misconduct is made out.”
The Bench further elaborated on the potential consequences of accepting the appellant’s arguments, observing that to act upon such a complaint “will result in undermining the duties which an Advocate owes to his client.”
In its concluding remarks, the court provided a clear articulation of an advocate’s professional duty: “We may also record that an Advocate is bound by the instructions given to him by his client and it does not form part of his duty to verify the truthfulness or veracity of such instructions especially for the reason that the assertions made by the parties before the Court in the form of pleadings or setting up a case are to be decided by the learned Court concerned in the proceedings and not by the lawyers representing the respective parties.”
Finding no irregularity or illegality in the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, with parties directed to bear their own costs. The court also noted that the appellant had already initiated separate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding alleged perjury and fabrication of documents, which would be decided by the concerned court on its own merits.
