Delhi High Court fines man Rs 2 lakh, orders action against lawyer wife for ‘hiding’ case

“An advocate occupies a dual position. While representing the interests of the client fearlessly, an advocate simultaneously functions as an officer of the Court and is under an equally compelling obligation to assist the Court by making a full, fair and accurate disclosure of all facts material to the adjudication of the (matter),” the August 14 order read.

The man had filed a case before the high court seeking to set aside the criminal case that was ongoing before the trial court. While the case was pending, the high court learnt that he had intentionally hidden from it the fact that he had earlier too filed a case requesting similar relief, which was dismissed by the court. In fact, in the current plea, the man had stated that he had not filed any similar case before.

The high court then issued a show-cause notice to the filing advocate, who was the man’s wife. The court said it appeared that the earlier case was deliberately hidden from it in a bid to interfere with the administration of justice. It said the lawyer’s act amounted to “professional misconduct” as she had the duty to verify the correctness of the legal submissions.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the conduct of the man and his advocate wife showed a ‘glaring pattern of resorting to unfair practices in judicial proceedings’.

The court asked the lawyer to explain why a contempt case should not be started against her, besides disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi. The high court also noted a history of court orders from 2018 to 2025 which showed continuous abuse of process by the man and the lawyer, including multiple “non-maintainable” challenges to orders passed in the criminal case and multiple pleas seeking transfer of judges, which were later dismissed for lacking merit.

Further, the high court was informed that the criminal case that the man had sought to quash had been decided and dismissed by the trial court because the woman who had complained against him had failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the high court still decided to hear the lawyer’s answer to the show-cause notice because of her “deliberate misconduct”.

‘No satisfactory explanation’

Advocate Chand Chopra, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by the court, submitted that the advocate had appeared throughout the case in a “dual capacity”, that is, as the man’s advocate and his Special Power of Attorney holder, while also being his spouse. Consequently, she had direct and personal knowledge of the previous case being dismissed by the high court. According to the counsel, no satisfactory explanation was given by the lawyer for her conduct, and her actions were required to be considered for contempt of court and disciplinary proceedings.

Advocate T Singhdev appeared for the Bar Council of Delhi, while advocate Preet Pal Singh appeared for the Bar Council of India.

Advocate Kajal Chandra, appearing for the woman advocate, submitted that there had been an unintentional mistake on her part due to a “lapse of memory”, and offered a verbal apology on her behalf. The counsel also stated that the advocate was not willing to file a written unconditional apology and pay costs to “purge the contempt”.

Among other arguments, the lawyer had stated in her reply that the present case was “fundamentally” different from the earlier plea as “the reliefs, factual foundations, nomenclature and circumstances in the two proceedings were materially different, and therefore the present petition could not be regarded as a repetition of the earlier proceedings.”

Senior Advocate Pawanjit Singh Bindra appeared for the complainant (man’s sister). Additional Standing Counsel (criminal) Rupali Bandhopadhya and advocate Abhijeet Kumar appeared for the Delhi Police.

‘No remorse’

The high court noted that the conduct of the man and his advocate wife disclosed a “glaring pattern of resorting to unfair practices in judicial proceedings,” and that the actions of the advocate could not be seen as an error. It said, “…such a false declaration strikes at the foundation of the administration of justice, as the Court proceeds on the basis that the statements made in pleadings, particularly mandatory declarations, are true, accurate and complete.”

According to the high court, the advocate had “expressly” refused to give a written apology and had “neither accepted responsibility for the false declaration nor expressed any remorse”. Hence, it found “no expression of genuine contrition or acceptance of responsibility that would warrant taking a lenient view for the advocate.” The court further observed that the dual roles of wife and counsel played by the advocate had blurred the difference between “an advocate’s professional obligations and her personal interest in the litigation” and that her actions had a “direct tendency” to interfere with the judicial proceedings.

The court ordered the judgment to be sent to the Bar Council of Delhi for consideration to start disciplinary proceedings against the advocate, and a criminal contempt case was also ordered to be registered and sent before the Chief Justice for obtaining appropriate orders.

The high court further directed that the advocate was not allowed to represent her husband in any of the cases that were related to or were a result of the present case and that he was allowed to engage any other advocate of his choice.

Since the man had filed the plea and hidden important facts related to it, the court said that it was “a serious matter and cannot be permitted to be swept under the carpet merely because the substantive proceedings have subsequently become infructuous,” and imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the man, from which Rs 1 lakh were to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association and Rs 1 lakh was directed to be given to Shaurya Foundation Trust within a period of two weeks from the date of the judgment.