A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by two practising lawyers from Gujarat against whom the Gujarat High Court has ordered to lodge an inquiry for alleged misconduct of forging the vakalatnama of their client.
The lawyers have sought a stay on the order, submitting that such an order impinged upon their reputation, dignity and right to continue their profession under Article 21 and 19(1)(g) respectively. Senior Advocate Mr Yatin Oza appeared for the petitioner-lawyers on April 10, before the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud requesting for an early listing of the matter.
Earlier on April 8, the bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar of Gujarat High Court in an interim order directed to lodge a complaint and investigate against two lawyers, namely Sandipkumar M Patel and Viral J Vyas who were appearing for their client Bharatbhai Dhirubhai Ahir. The High Court passed the order while hearing a petition to release the latter’s Toyota Innova car seized in relation to an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
The plea contended by the petitioners that during the hearing, allegedly one person claiming to be the petitioner’s client Aahir appeared before the bench stating that he never engaged the said petitioners in the capacity of lawyers nor filed the present petition. He also stated before the court that while his vehicle was stolen in 2016 he had only filed a complaint but never engaged a lawyer to release the vehicle in question.
While comparing the signature of the person claimed as Aahir to the signature assigned in the petition before the High Court, the bench concluded that prima facie the signature in the petition appeared to be forged and that the petition has been filed by someone else impersonating the said Aahir.
Accordingly, the bench ordered a complaint to be lodged against the advocates, along with a thorough inquiry to be done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar of the High Court.
The court said that it is of prima facie view that thorough inquiry and investigation is required to be initiated in the matter. It further directed the Registrar General, Gujarat High Court to authorize an officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar to lodge a complaint in this regard.
The petitioner-lawyers have submitted that the High Court overlooked the cogent explanation given by them before the bench, and instead of calling for a written affirmed statement from claimed Mr Ahir , the bench took the words of him as the gospel truth and initiated an inquiry.
The aggrieved petitioners emphasized that not only does this negatively affect their hard-earned reputation built in the legal fraternity over 16 years but also impacts their right to continue their profession under Article 19(1)(g).