In the latest development in the field of law, the High court of Allahabad remarked on the rising professional misconduct on the part of lawyers as many lawyers do not show up for their listed cases in the court. The remarks came from the court while hearing the criminal bail application in the matter of Smt. Pooja Vs State of U.P. where the Counsel for Applicant: – Anil Kumar Shukla and Counsel for Opposite Party: – G.A.,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, where no one was present on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application even in the revised list. Court’s Observation on Advocates’ Non-Appearance “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.” Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal made the remarks while hearing the proceeding.

The court cited the stance taken in judgement of the Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, where it was categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice.

Need for Timely Action and Accountability
The bench also highlighted that the courts have to be diligent and take timely action against all those at default including advocates, parties to the proceeding who are important for the disputed matter, in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal underlined that it is the professional obligation of advocates to be present in court whenever their matters are scheduled for hearing. Failure to appear not only prejudices the interests of the clients but also results in unnecessary waste of the court’s valuable time and obstructs the smooth delivery of justice. The Court observed that such absence on the part of lawyers amounts to a breach of professional standards and ethical duties and according to the Bar Council of India Rules, it is mandatory for advocates to attend court proceedings when required, repeated non-appearance may be treated as professional misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings.
Outcome of the Case

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Court declined to entertain the bail application. The application was accordingly rejected.

Conclusion – Curbing Misuse of Judicial Time The resources available to the Court, especially valuable judicial time, are limited and already under immense strain. Time that should be devoted to resolving serious and genuine disputes gets consumed by frivolous, baseless cases that
misuse the legal process. Given that the judicial system does not have unlimited capacity to deliver timely justice to those with legitimate claims, Courts while hearing this case have rightly emphasized that such unwarranted misuse of judicial time must be checked. Parties who indulge in wasting the Court’s scarce resources should be made to compensate not only the opposing party but also the justice system itself.
Case Name –Smt. Pooja vs. State of U.P 2025
Other Relevant Judgement
Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta (2008)
In this case the division bench clearly emphasized that advocates, as officers of the Court, have a duty not only towards the Court but also towards their clients. They are expected to ensure that cases are pursued and decided without unnecessary delays so that justice is delivered promptly. The Court highlighted that judicial time is extremely valuable because it belongs to the public. It must be used wisely for hearing matters that genuinely deserve the Court’s attention and should be decided at the earliest possible opportunity. Justice must reach those who truly need it without undue delay. Unfortunately, when the Court’s time is taken up by frivolous and baseless cases, it reduces the time available for genuine disputes. This misuse of judicial resources denies real litigants the timely relief they deserve. The Court called upon members of the Bar to act responsibly and discourage unnecessary and bogus litigation. Lawyers should advise their clients not to file
cases that lack merit and should refuse to participate in such matters. By doing so, the burden on the courts will reduce, allowing deserving litigants to receive justice faster. This will strengthen the institution and help the judiciary fulfil its constitutional responsibility to deliver justice where it is genuinely needed.
Harish Uppal vs Union of India & Anr
In Harish Uppal, the Supreme Court held that lawyers do not have the right to go on strike or give a call for boycott. The Court declared that such actions amount to professional misconduct, as they disrupt the administration of justice and deny clients their right to be represented.
The Bench remarked that every Court has a solemn duty to proceed with the judicial business during Court hours and the Court is not obliged to adjourn a case because of a strike call. The Court is under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and it cannot shirk that obligation on the ground that the advocates are on strike. If the counsel or/and the party does not appear, the necessary consequences contemplated in law should follow.

Written By : Aryan Srivastava, LC1, Faculty of Law, DU

all rights reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)