The Supreme Court began a 15-page judgment concerning a bitter tussle between a litigant and her former lawyer with the observation that in a trial in which the parties already know the truth, “it is the judge who is on trial”.
The case dates back more than a decade, when a woman accused a senior police officer in Maharashtra of sexual assault. She alleged that the harm caused to her was irreversible. The disclosures had affected her dignity, her privacy, her mental peace and her standing in society. The lawyer claimed that the woman’s grievances against the police officer had not included rape or any other sexual offence. The BCI removed the lawyer from the rolls for two years and ordered him to pay a fine. Meanwhile, the police officer, in separate proceedings, was discharged from all accusations. At the Supreme Court, the woman sought an enhancement of punishment for the advocate, while the latter maintained that the findings of professional misconduct against him were unsustainable.
She sought compensation of ₹2 crore from the advocate.
She had kept the lawyer, who is the respondent, for professional legal advice, according to her. The woman alleged that the lawyer acted against her interests by “coordinating” with the police officer. She said he further put confidential material regarding her in the public domain, breaching the “heightened” professional and ethical obligations of an advocate towards his client. At the highest, it was only a case of non-performance of duty, the lawyer had said. He also submitted that the woman wanted to appear on a reality television programme and was seeking to sensationalise the matter in order to “generate publicity and advance her career”.
The case finally came before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI).
A Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, who authored the recent verdict, observed that neither party in the dispute had been candid but confidently expected vindication from the court. “The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making. We say at the outset, and give our reasons in what follows, that neither the appellant nor the respondent leaves this court with credit,” Justice Nath observed.
