“Lawyer Not a Detective—No Duty to Verify Client’s Claims Before Representing Them in Court”: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Professional Misconduct

“Advocates Owe Duty to Their Clients—Not to the Opponent” - In a judgment that reaffirms the essential duties of an advocate under the Advocates Act, the Delhi High Court on August 21, 2025, dismissed an intra-court appeal alleging professional misconduct by lawyers for simply representing their client’s version in court. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, held that “an Advocate is bound by the instructions given to him by his client and it does not form part of his duty to verify the truthfulness or veracity of such instructions.”

The case involved accusations by the appellant, Chand Mehra, against opposing counsel in a cheque bounce matter, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging they had represented false claims and thereby committed professional misconduct. The High Court found no such misconduct, noting that no fiduciary or professional relationship existed between the appellant and the said advocates.

The genesis of the dispute lay in a complaint made by Chand Mehra before the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) against three lawyers (Respondents 3 to 5), who had represented the complainant’s adversary in a Section 138 NI Act case. Mehra alleged that the lawyers had advanced false statements without due diligence, thereby violating Rule 4, Section I, Chapter I, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that “an advocate shall not be a mere mouthpiece of the client.”

The BCD, however, by order dated October 6, 2023, dismissed the complaint, stating that no professional relationship existed between Mehra and the said advocates, and thus no fiduciary duty could have been violated. It further held that whether the claims made in court were “false or correct is to be decided by the Court” and that no misconduct had been established.

A revision petition before the Bar Council of India (BCI) was also dismissed on November 11, 2024, with the BCI unequivocally holding that “an Advocate cannot sit and make an investigation of their client’s case before representing such client in the Court of law.” The BCI also ruled that a lawyer cannot be prosecuted merely because the client’s case turned out to be false, particularly in the absence of any evidence of collusion or mala fide.

The central legal questions before the Court were whether an advocate can be held professionally liable for representing a client whose version of facts may later be disproved, and whether advocates owe any duty to the opposing party in litigation.

The Court noted that Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, defines “professional misconduct” and that such misconduct cannot be presumed merely because the advocate acted on client instructions that are later found untrue. The Bench observed:

“If the complaint made by the appellant is to be acted upon... the same will result in undermining the duties which an Advocate owes to his client.”

Referring to the ruling of the Madras High Court in R. Swaminathan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12777), the Delhi High Court reiterated that a lawyer cannot be penalised for the mere fact that his client’s case did not succeed. It underscored that “advocates of the adversary of the appellant do not owe any fiduciary duty to the appellant, nor is there any professional relationship between them.”

On the argument that the advocates had failed to verify facts, the Court responded strongly:

“Assertions made by the parties before the Court in the form of pleadings or setting up a case are to be decided by the learned Court concerned in the proceedings and not by the lawyers representing the respective parties.”

The Bench further added that the advocate’s role was not investigatory, and Rule 4 cannot be read to require independent fact-checking by lawyers before representation:

“The Rule restricts an Advocate not to be a mere mouthpiece of his client, however, the same does not mean that an Advocate has to first ascertain the genuineness of his client’s case before representing them.”

Regarding allegations of perjury and fabrication, the Court also took note that separate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC were already initiated by the appellant, and it is for that court to determine if any forgery or falsehood was committed.

The Court found no irregularity in the earlier judgment of the Single Judge (dated April 15, 2025), which had affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the BCD and the BCI. In dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court held that the complaint was legally untenable and ethically misplaced:

“It is needless to observe that on the basis of the contents of the complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, no case of professional misconduct is made out.”

The judgment strongly reaffirms the boundary of an advocate’s duties and shields the legal profession from vexatious complaints rooted in adversarial dissatisfaction.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2025