In a stern move against professional misconduct, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Shiv Prakash, who sought adjournment in a case by falsely claiming that his father had recently passed away.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, while hearing the matter titled Gohar and 2 Others v. State of UP and 3 Others, remarked that the conduct of the counsel was “unbecoming of an advocate of this Court” and held that such actions amounted to professional misconduct.
“Let the matter be referred to U.P. Bar Council to take appropriate action after calling explanation from Sri Shiv Prakash and proceed under the Advocates’ Act, 1961, within a period of two months,” the Court ordered.
The case pertained to petitions challenging orders issued by the Additional District Magistrate and the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Moradabad, under the Food Safety and Standards Act. Authorities had earlier seized 4,000 litres of adulterated milk and related materials during a raid in Moradabad.
During the proceedings, Advocate Shiv Prakash, appearing for the petitioners, sought adjournments on two occasions through his junior counsel, citing the “recent death” of his father. However, Sanjai Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, opposed the request, drawing the Court’s attention to Prakash’s Bar Council registration, which already listed him as the son of “Late Shyam Lal Tiwari”.
On March 12, the counsel’s junior repeated the false claim, prompting the Court to summon Shiv Prakash in person. When questioned, Prakash admitted that his father had passed away before he had even joined the legal profession.
Taking serious note of the false statements made to the Court, Justice Agarwal directed that an explanation be sought from the advocate and that the Bar Council proceed as per the Advocates’ Act, 1961.
Meanwhile, the Court also dismissed the writ petition on merits, stating:
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that looking to the gravity of the matter, no case for interference is made out in the orders impugned. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.”
The case stands as a reminder of the ethical standards expected from members of the legal profession and the consequences of breaching that trust.
Case: Gohar And 2 Others vs State of UP and 3 Others – Available on LAWFYI.IO
