Delhi High Court says lawyers are expected to speak in court with respect at all times, saying mutual respect between lawyers and bar associations is essential to a vibrant legal system.

“Lawyers are expected to address courts with respect and respect at all times. Mutual respect between the bench and the bar is a prerequisite for a dynamic and strong legal system to function.” , said Justice C Hari Shankar.

But the court also said negative statements made to attorneys in court orders could have serious and far-reaching consequences.

“Courts should refrain from entering such remarks or from showing undue sensitivity to what lawyers say in court. In a heated debate, the language lawyers use may not be the wisest. Courts are expected to take this fact into account and act with caution. Sibling advice beyond the bar is often sufficient in such cases,” said Judge Shankar.

In a civil suit, the court considered him challenging the additional district judge’s order dated August 27, 2022. The petition also requested the deletion of the trial court’s statement to plaintiffs’ counsel. Prior to the first instance, the applicant (plaintiff in the action) relied on several documents described as diaries of payments received from the defendants. However, the defendants were not notified prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

The Court of First Instance then questioned the complainant as to the authenticity of the document and added why the defendant should be notified if only a copy of the document was presented. The court also questioned the statute of limitations.

A lawyer who heard the judge’s question said he was “shocked and surprised to hear this,” according to the court order. The District Court stated in its decision:

“In my considered opinion, such use of language is not appropriate for attorneys and attorneys should answer questions from the court.”

Judge Shankar said the challenge to the court order was inherently premature because the order on appeal merely sought answers from the petitioner’s attorneys to specific questions the court asked.

“There is no question that this Court is interfering at this stage of the proceedings under Section 227 of the Indian Constitution. We will have to let it go,” said Judge Shanker.

However, Judge Shankar noted that ADJ had entered “certain negative comments about the language used” by the attorney.

HC Bank’s attorneys have sincerely apologized for failing to respond appropriately in court and ensured that such incidents would never happen again. “The defense counsel expressed ‘shock and surprise’ at the defense counsel’s questions and cannot be said to follow the most reasonable standards of legal discourse. The apology is acceptable,” the court said.

“That said, I don’t think the language used by the lawyers was offensive enough to encourage negative remarks about them,” he added.

By virtue of the above remarks, the court deleted negative remarks made to petitioner’s counsel in the contested decision.