Emphasizing the sanctity of professional boundaries in the legal fraternity, the Supreme Court has questioned a female advocate for entering into an intimate relationship with a client whom she was advising on a matrimonial dispute.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan expressed strong disapproval of the lawyer’s conduct, remarking that legal professionals are expected to maintain a distinct line between professional duty and personal involvement, particularly when the client’s previous marriage has not yet been legally dissolved.
“We Don’t Expect This”
The observation came while the Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man who is currently residing in London. The petitioner had approached the Top Court seeking protection from arrest in a sexual assault case filed by the lawyer.
The core of the Court’s inquiry revolved around the propriety of the relationship. The bench pointedly asked the complainant why she, being a 36-year-old practicing advocate, chose to enter a personal relationship with a man who had approached her for legal counsel regarding his divorce.
“She is an advocate. She is handling the petitioner’s divorce case. Why did you do that? We don’t expect this,” the bench remarked.
When the woman advocate intervened to clarify her position, stating that she had only “guided” the man and never formally filed a ‘vakalatnama’ or appeared for him in court, the bench remained unimpressed. The Justices noted that the technical distinction between “appearing” and “guiding” made little difference if she was acting as his legal advisor while simultaneously becoming personally involved.
Justice Nagarathna observed, “She should have known that until he gets a divorce decree, he cannot get married to your party. She is not an ordinary, uneducated or naive person. She is an advocate.”
Allegations of a Pattern
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Rishi Malhotra brought serious allegations against the complainant to the Court’s notice. He submitted that this was not an isolated incident, alleging that the woman had filed “four identical cases” of sexual assault against different individuals.
Malhotra further highlighted that the Bombay High Court had previously taken note of her conduct and had even ordered an inquiry into the matter.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the petitioner had not joined the investigation and described the situation as a “love relation,” stating, “I cannot testify what had transpired between the love birds.”
However, the Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s attempt to label the petitioner as an “absconder” or a “proclaimed offender.” The bench clarified that since the man had been residing abroad in London long before the dispute arose, such claims could not stand.
“Get Out of This Mess”
Taking a stern but advisory tone, the Court directed the respondent’s counsel to guide the woman to focus on her career rather than getting entangled in such litigation.
“Advise your client. Get out of this mess. Let her concentrate on her profession,” the bench said.
Refusing to accept the allegations at face value given the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court granted the man interim protection, ordering that “no coercive steps” be taken against him. The Court noted that the charge sheet had already been filed and the petitioner had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in India.
The Court has directed the respondent to file a detailed affidavit clarifying her version of events. The matter is listed for the next hearing on December 12.
