In a recent decision addressing the critical role of ethics and responsibility within the judicial system, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of conscientious conduct by members of the Bar. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, presiding over Second Appeal No. 626 of 2006 (Rajneesh Kumar and Others vs. Santosh Kumar and Others), voiced strong concerns about lapses in attorney conduct that could potentially affect the public’s trust in the judiciary.
Case Background
The case, which involves a longstanding dispute between Rajneesh Kumar and Others (appellants) and Santosh Kumar and Others (respondents), reached a turning point when procedural missteps brought the issue of judicial ethics into sharp focus. Notably, Justice Kshitij Shailendra, who had previously represented the respondents before his elevation to the Bench, found himself presiding over the appeal without having been informed of his earlier association with the case.
This situation arose as Siddharth Srivastava, representing the appellants on behalf of lawyer Rahul Sahai, requested the withdrawal of the appeal without mentioning the judge’s prior involvement as counsel. The court granted the withdrawal initially, relying on the representation, but later reversed the order upon realizing the oversight. Justice Shailendra stressed that such instances, even if unintended, could harm the public perception of judicial impartiality.
Court’s Key Observations and Ethical Issues
Justice Shailendra’s remarks drew attention to two major points:
1. Responsibility and Due Diligence of Lawyers
He underscored the duty of legal practitioners to conduct thorough checks and responsibly inform the court of any potential conflicts. Addressing the young counsel Srivastava, Justice Shailendra cautioned against overlooking essential details that could impact the judicial process, stating that such conduct should not be repeated, though he refrained from issuing a harsher penalty, considering Srivastava’s relatively early career stage.
2. Maintaining Judicial Integrity and Public Trust
The court’s decision highlighted the necessity of preserving public trust in judicial impartiality, observing that a lack of diligence on the part of the Bar could inadvertently cast a shadow over the judiciary. Justice Shailendra remarked:
“The Bench functions on the faith reposed in members of the Bar and vice-versa… It is the pious duty of both sides not to give rise to a situation that may shatter the confidence reposed by us on us.”
These words reflect the court’s call for accountability, urging that all legal professionals bear in mind their responsibility in upholding the judiciary’s image and credibility in the public eye.
In response to the situation, Justice Shailendra vacated the initial order granting withdrawal and directed the case to be reassigned to a new Bench after nomination by the Chief Justice. The case is expected to be heard again in early December 2024. This decision aims to restore confidence in the impartiality of court proceedings and prevent similar issues from arising in the future.
