Lawyers Not Bound to Verify Truth of Client’s Case Before Representation: Delhi HC [Read Order]
The Delhi High Court rules that advocates are not obliged to verify the truth of their client’s case and must act on client instructions.
Lawers - Taxscan
Lawers - Taxscan
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that lawyers are not required to verify the truth of their client’s case before representing them in court, and that advocates are bound to act on client instructions.
Chand Mehra, the appellant, filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition, which had challenged two orders passed by the Bar Council of Delhi on 06 October 2023 and the Bar Council of India on 11 November 2024.
Both councils had dismissed his complaint against three advocates who had represented the opposing party in a cheque dishonour case filed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here
The appellant’s counsel argued that the advocates should have verified the facts of their client’s case before representing them, and that their failure to do so amounted to professional misconduct. The counsel further argued that the advocates could not act merely as mouthpieces of their clients under the Bar Council of India Rules.
The respondents’ counsel argued that no fiduciary or professional relationship existed between the appellant and the three advocates, and that under the Advocates Act, 1961, lawyers are required to act on client instructions, not to investigate their veracity. They further argued that whether a client’s case is true or false is for the court to decide, not the advocate.
Also Read:Permanent Establishment Under DTAAs: Judicial Trends and Evolving Interpretations
Stay Ahead with Expert Tax Insights – 2025 Edition Click here
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the reasoning of the Bar Council of India was correct and that no case of professional misconduct had been made out.
The court explained that advocates are duty-bound to follow client instructions and pointed out that assessing the truthfulness of pleadings is the role of the court, not of lawyers. The court also observed that the appellant’s concerns regarding alleged perjury and fabrication of documents were already the subject of separate proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court held that the appeal lacked merit and that there was no illegality or irregularity in the Single Judge’s order. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
