Supreme Court flags “unethical” disengagement by newly-designated senior advocates
In a strongly-worded rebuke, the Supreme Court of India has denounced the emerging practice of newly-designated senior advocates withdrawing from ongoing cases, labelling the behaviour as “absolutely unethical”. The development came during proceedings in the case Biswanath Kundu vs State through CBI, where the Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti noted with concern that the petitioner’s advocate had failed to appear.
Upon inquiry, the Bench was informed that the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) had recently been designated as a Senior Advocate and had thus withdrawn from the matter. The judges took serious exception to this development, asserting that such conduct was unacceptable.
“Unethical and unprecedented,” says Justice Amanullah
“This is a very new trend, and I think it is unethical on the part of the Bar,” Justice Amanullah said in open court. “If somebody becomes a Senior Advocate, should they abandon the case? They should now assist as seniors. They have taken responsibility.”
The Bench underlined that once a lawyer accepts a case, they are ethically bound to see it through or ensure a proper transition. Justice Amanullah added that this behaviour appeared to be prevalent only in the Supreme Court, not in any other courts.
He further shared his personal experience, noting that even after being designated a Senior Advocate, he had taken special government permission to continue handling an earlier matter. “Very unethical practices in the Supreme Court,” he lamented.
Bench reiterates duty of legal professionals
The Court stressed that disengagement from a case after elevation must follow due process. A lawyer present in court echoed the concern and pointed out that the AoR is responsible for notifying the client and ensuring smooth coordination for a handover.
Justice Amanullah concurred and asked those present to convey the Court’s “strong sentiment” to the advocate in question. “Such behaviour lacks accountability and cannot be condoned,” he said.
Rising criticism over judiciary’s inaction on West UP Bench
While the Court came down firmly on ethical standards within the legal profession, several legal observers have drawn attention to another persistent issue: the glaring absence of a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh. Despite being home to more than 10 crore people and accounting for a majority of pending cases in the state, West UP continues to lack a High Court Bench, forcing litigants from 30 districts to travel to Allahabad, often 700–800 km away.
Legal experts and activists have long criticised the Centre and the judiciary for failing to address this imbalance. Many argue that this reflects a systemic neglect of northern states like UP, Bihar, and Rajasthan, which are among the most underrepresented in terms of judicial infrastructure.
Past recommendations and current disparity
Multiple reports, including the 230th Report of the Law Commission of India in 2009 and the Jaswant Singh Commission set up in the 1970s, recommended more Benches in UP. Yet, the recommendations remain unimplemented. Ironically, smaller states such as Karnataka and Maharashtra enjoy multiple Benches, despite having far fewer pending cases and smaller populations.
Karnataka, for instance, with just 6 crore residents, has High Court Benches in both Dharwad and Gulbarga, while UP—with over 26 crore people—has only one Bench in Lucknow, and that too in proximity to the principal seat in Allahabad.
Judiciary and Parliament criticised for inaction
Critics have accused both the Centre and the judiciary of perpetuating a southern and western state bias in judicial allocation. Despite repeated protests, parliamentary representations, and even support from former Chief Justices, the demand for a Bench in West UP remains unmet.
The issue was notably raised in a PIL by advocate KM Chitra in 2018. Then CJI Ranjan Gogoi acknowledged the need for a Bench in West UP but deferred the matter to the Centre, citing jurisdictional limitations.
Conclusion: Will change ever come?
The Supreme Court’s recent stance on professional ethics is a welcome move. However, legal observers argue that ethical consistency must also be reflected in systemic reforms—particularly in matters such as equitable distribution of judicial infrastructure. With over seven decades of delay, the denial of a High Court Bench in West UP is seen not only as a policy failure but as a constitutional injustice.
The question remains: will the judiciary and the legislature ever act decisively to correct this longstanding imbalance, or will the issue continue to be buried under bureaucratic indifference?
Read More: