The Kerala High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by advocate Sadiqali M. and removed certain remarks made against him in an earlier judgment, observing that the comments could have an unintended impact on his professional future. The Division Bench Comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji clarified that the earlier observations were intended to caution and guide the young advocate about his professional responsibilities rather than cause lasting prejudice.
Background
The appeal arose from a judgment in a writ petition in which the Single Judge had made observations concerning Sadiqali M., who appeared as counsel for the petitioner. Aggrieved by those remarks, the advocate approached the Division Bench seeking their removal.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, instructed by advocate Manas P. Hameed, argued that the earlier judgment had attributed deliberate conduct to his client without sufficient proof. He submitted that an advocate could not automatically be held responsible for the truthfulness of every statement contained in a client’s affidavit.
The appellant also argued that judicial guidance to a young lawyer should not jeopardise his professional future. The counsel appearing for Federal Bank left the issue to the Court while requesting that the earlier judgment not be disturbed on its merits.
The Division Bench emphasised that advocates must balance their duty to protect clients with their responsibility to maintain fairness before the court. While lawyers generally rely on their clients’ instructions and sworn statements, they are also expected to examine the documents placed before them and exercise caution when circumstances raise doubts.
The Court observed:
“As a normative rule, Advocates are expected to make faithful disclosures to Court; but, of course, only if they are aware of it, and not otherwise.”
The Bench acknowledged that the Single Judge had adopted an admonishing tone while addressing the advocate’s conduct. However, it considered the broader purpose of those remarks before deciding whether they should remain part of the judgment.
Referring to the professional standards prescribed by the Bar Council of India, the Court highlighted that an advocate must exercise independent judgment instead of acting merely as an extension of the client.
The judgment stated:
“It is the fundamental imperative that an Advocate must zealously and fearlessly protect the client’s interests; but through fair means, without being their personal extension or alter ego.”
The Bench also noted that, although the earlier judgment used harsh language, it was not intended to be caustic towards the advocate. Instead, its purpose was to caution him and remind him of his professional obligations. Nevertheless, the Division Bench considered it inappropriate to leave remarks that could adversely affect his future.
Allowing the appeal to a limited extent, the Kerala High Court directed that the portion of paragraph 5 of the Single Judge’s judgment beginning with the words “It is well settled” and continuing until the end of that paragraph be expunged.
The Bench clarified that the earlier judgment would remain unaltered in all other respects.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sadiqali M. v. Federal Bank & Others
- Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 2113 of 2026
- Judges: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji
- Decision Date: October 13, 2026
