A New Counsel Ought to State Instructions Received, Not Re-argue the Case: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India dismissed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3/2020, filed by Pintu Madanmohan Mondal, which sought the transfer of investigations pertaining to multiple cases. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, took a critical stance on the repeated change of senior counsel by the petitioner, which appeared to delay proceedings unnecessarily.

The petitioner sought to transfer investigations related to several cases, despite having applied for quashing those cases before the High Court, where proceedings were pending. The petition first came up on October 3, 2024, when two senior advocates representing the petitioner argued the matter. The Court highlighted various flaws in the prayer clauses and the overlapping reliefs already sought in the High Court.

Subsequent hearings saw further attempts to adjourn the case, including a request by another senior counsel on October 23 for an extended delay, which the Court declined. On October 24, a fourth senior counsel represented the petitioner.

Justice Abhay S. Oka remarked on the practice of repeatedly changing legal representation:

"It is not the case that the learned senior counsel who argued the matter and who took time to take instructions are not available. Members of the Bar very well know what instructions the advocates are supposed to take."

The Court emphasized that engaging new counsel should not be used as a strategy to restart arguments or prolong cases:

"Even if due to exigencies, a new counsel is engaged, he ought to state the instructions received. He cannot re-argue the case."

This highlighted the Court’s disapproval of tactics perceived as delaying or obfuscating the judicial process.

After hearing brief arguments, the petitioner’s counsel requested to withdraw the petition with the option to pursue suitable proceedings in the High Court concerning Arambagh PS Case No. 156 of 2021. The Supreme Court agreed to this withdrawal, formally dismissing the petition and clarifying that all arguments remain open for the High Court proceedings.

Final Order: "The writ petition is lacking merit and is accordingly dismissed."

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to procedural discipline, discouraging the practice of changing counsel as a means to reset or delay court proceedings. It ensures that case management remains efficient while safeguarding parties' rights to legal recourse.

Date of Decision: October 24, 2024

Pintu Madanmohan Mondal Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P. (Criminal) No. 3/2020