The Allahabad High Court, in a firm stance against non-serious legal practices, declared that repeated non-appearance of advocates in court amounts to professional misconduct, and may even reflect bench hunting or forum shopping.
This strong observation was made by Justice Krishan Pahal while hearing the bail application in the case of Pooja vs. State of U.P 2025 (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34926 of 2023). The bail plea, listed five times over the past seven months, was never attended by the applicant's counsel, even in the revised list on July 3, 2025.
“It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping,”
— Justice Krishan Pahal
Read also:- Consumer Forum Must Allow Rebuttal Evidence, Cannot Decide Cases Summarily: J&K High Court
The Court noted that the statement under Section 313 CrPC had already been recorded, and the trial was at its final stage. Thus, the application was termed infructuous due to delay.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal [(2021) 12 SCC 612], the High Court emphasized:
“Courts shall not grant adjournments in routine and mechanical manner… they must act diligently to ensure timely justice.”
The judge further clarified that mere pendency of a bail application does not give the applicant any rights, especially when they are absent without explanation. The Court described this conduct as a “blatant abuse of the process of law.”
Read also:- Delhi High Court Directs Expedited Decision on Enhanced Remuneration for Law Researchers
“The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation.”
Stressing the importance of judicial time, the Court warned against frivolous and vexatious litigation. It emphasized that scarce judicial resources must not be wasted, and parties misusing the system may need to compensate both adversaries and the judiciary.
“A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay… unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed.”
The Court also referred to a 2008 ruling (Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta) which emphasized that advocates, as officers of the court, have a responsibility to both the court and their clients. Frivolous cases waste time and delay justice for genuine litigants.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court: Marriage Not Registered Under Foreign Marriage Act Still Valid Under Personal Law
“Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real litigants from the shower of justice at a time when they really need it.”
In conclusion, the Court found that the applicant had lost interest in the matter, and the repeated absence was a misuse of court process. The bail application was therefore rejected.
“The instant case is the misuse of process of Court by the applicant,” the order read.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the concerned authority for immediate action.
Case Title: Pooja vs. State of U.P 2025