The Gauhati High Court has held that advocates cannot be held responsible for the physical whereabouts or later non-appearance of a writ petitioner after a petition has been filed. At the same time, the Court cautioned lawyers to exercise greater care while accepting a Vakalatnama, particularly when they appear at the request of another advocate.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury delivered the judgment on August 31, 2026, in Harbinder Singh Kalsi and Another v. State of Assam and 25 Others, WA/51/2026.
Background
The dispute arose from a writ petition seeking a court-monitored probe into the death of the father of the writ petitioner, Beolin Kharbhih. The appellants, who were practising advocates, had agreed to appear in the matter after being approached by a fellow advocate who was reluctant to sign the Vakalatnama because of an alleged conflict of interest.
According to the advocates, they had satisfied themselves that the petitioner existed and that the petition contained genuine averments. The petitioner was stated to have been physically present on the High Court premises and was identified before the Oath Commissioner by the registered clerk of the advocate who had referred the matter.
The writ petition remained pending for around six years. During its pendency, doubts were raised about the petitioner's existence after she could not be located at her stated address during a CID enquiry. The Single Judge consequently dismissed the writ petition, imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on each advocate and directed that the matter be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings.
The advocates later discovered that one of the respondents had filed a caveat against the petitioner in a property dispute. They relied on this circumstance while seeking review of the earlier decision, but the review petition was dismissed.
The Division Bench drew a distinction between the duty of an advocate at the time of accepting a case and responsibility for the petitioner's whereabouts after filing.
The Court observed:
"Even otherwise, the appellants being Advocates cannot be made guarantors for the physical whereabouts of a writ-petitioner after filing of the writ petition and arguing the same."
The Bench found that the advocates should not have been held responsible merely because the petitioner could not subsequently be located. It held that the writ petition was rightly dismissed in view of the circumstances, but the monetary penalty imposed on the advocates was not justified.
The Court also considered the proposed Bar Council proceedings to be unduly harsh in the circumstances.
The Division Bench modified the Single Judge's judgment. It upheld the dismissal of the writ petition but set aside the ₹50,000 fine imposed on each advocate and the referral to the Bar Council. The review order dated May 30, 2023, was also set aside, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.
However, the Court cautioned advocates to be more careful when accepting a Vakalatnama at the request of a friend or fellow lawyer.
It said they should make reasonable inquiries into the correctness of the petition's averments and satisfy themselves that the person presented as the litigant is genuine.
