Delhi high court Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has banned advocate Deepak Khosla from filing matters or appearing in a number of Delhi courts by himself without another counsel, citing a litany of complaints from the bench against the advocate who has become well-known for his often combative and unconventional approach.
The judge, in a detailed 118-page judgment pronounced on 13 January after reserving judgment on 17 November of last year, came down heavily on Khosla for instances of misconduct and not paying costs imposed on him in a variety of cases, asking bar councils to look into Khosla’s record, though Sachdeva stopped short of holding Khosla in contempt.
Khosla has denied wrongdoing and told Legally India he would appeal.
Deepak Khosla had never shied away from head-on conflict with the bench, ranging from his long-running campaign to allow audio recording in court to more recently his aggressive litigation strategy in representing Aam Aadmi party member Somnath Bharti in a racism row, resulting in him filing criminal defamation claims against a magistrate.
Sachdeva wrote in his order that since 2008, 32 judges and judicial officers of high courts, subordinate courts, the Company Law Board and the Arbitral Tribunal had recused themselves before Khosla, either as a party or advocate:
Little did the framing fathers of the Constitution and the legislators visualize that the privilege and liberty granted to an individual to approach the court of law and to appear for himself and for others either as an attorney or as an advocate could and would be misused and abused to such an extent as has been done by this one individual Mr. Deepak Khosla.
Noting that “members of the legal profession are required to maintain higher standards of behaviour and conduct than an ordinary citizen”, Sachdeva cited several examples of judges or tribunal chairs criticising Khosla in orders, recusing themselves, starting contempt proceedings and at times imposing – so far unpaid - costs for conduct they recorded as objectionable in their orders.
Sachdevas citations included “highly obstructive and abrasive conduct”, “scandalous averments contained in his application”, “insulting language”, Khosla“interrupt[ing] the court proceedings in loud and obstructive tone”, “prima facie … criminal contempt”, “audacious” statements, and other incidences of run-ins between Khosla and the judiciary, as well as 21 instances in the Delhi high court of costs imposed on Khosla ranging from Rs 5,000 to Rs 35,000.
Sachdeva in detail examined case laws relating to contempt, the Advocates Act and rules of advocates’ professional conduct.
He also noted that Khosla, who is enrolled with the Karnataka bar council but had apparently never filed a matter there, appeared to be in violation of section 35 of the Advocates Act for not having applied to transfer his name to the Delhi bar council rolls within six months of Delhi having become his main jurisdiction of practice.
Soft ban from Delhi courts & bar council inquiry
Sachdeva then ordered that Khosla be “prohibited from personally appearing and addressing any court in any matter in the Delhi High Court, the District Courts of Delhi, the Company Law Board either as a litigant in person or as an attorney/authorised representative or as an Advocate for a period of one year from today”.
Sachdeva also banned Khosla from “filing application or petition in the Delhi High Court” until he proved to the court’s registry that he had paid all costs imposed on him in a number of orders.
However, Sachdeva left the door open for Khosla to file proceedings if jointly filing the application with an advocate of the Delhi bar council or to engage third party advocates in his personal litigation, instructing Delhi courts’ registries to take note.
It is clarified that the period of one year has been fixed to enable the Respondent Mr. Deepak Khosla to introspect over his conduct and to learn to respect the court and the system of administration of justice and to mend his behaviour and attitude towards the courts and the judicial officers.
If after the expiry of the said period he does not mend his behaviour and attitude towards the courts and the judicial officers, the court would be at liberty to reconsider the disposal of the Show Cause Notice and revisit the directions issued herein and pass further appropriate orders.
Sachdeva also told the BCI and the Karnataka bar council to “examine the conduct and behaviour” of Khosla “as elucidated hereinabove and to take appropriate action in accordance with law”.
Khosla disagrees: Order was ex parte & ‘premeditated’
Khosla commented in an email:
The order is an ex parte order, without hearing me, which was deliberate, as I was on my legs before HMJ Shakdher in an extended hearing on the day when he (Sachdeva J) peremptorily closed the hearing. Upon mention to him the very next day that he should fairly hear the matter because the non-appearance was involuntary and a direct consequence of my discharging my professional duties before another court, he merely shrugged, showing his premeditated intent in acting in a certain pre-disposed manner.
Furthermore, his conduct is malicious, given that he knew a complaint for initiating action against him was pending with the Chief Justice (see complaint attached). I had repeatedly asked him to release the matter on this ground, to which he would refuse. I would then urge him to record my submission and his refusal in the order, but he would refuse to do so, this refusal to record in the order what transpired being yet another indicator of his malice. He would also refuse to record in the order the vital submission that a challenge to the order dated 24-04-2012 (which he was executing) also was pending, and he should await the outcome of that challenge.
His order, even otherwise, is coram non judice, given that he insisted on adjudicating what is, in essence, a criminal contempt petition, which – as per the Roster of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court - is prescribed for a Division Bench. See what the SC has said in State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand or State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar on the effect of a non-Roster Judge hearing a matter = coram non judice.
Khosla added that he would appeal and consider taking action against Sachdeva:
The order should be declared to be a nullity in less than a week. For that, I am tempted to take it to the court below, so that its inherent state nature of being a nullity is in even sharper focus. It shall also not materially affect my appearance in Court, as the direct challenge in suit notwithstanding, I also have the concurrent right to challenge it collaterally in light of Section 44 of the Evidence Act wherever and whenever it irks me.
Khosla had spent years in the courts as a serial writ petitioner before becoming a lawyer at the age of 53, as described in a Legally India profile of 2013.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
The justice delivery system in India depends heavily on the "ordinary citizen's" perception that justice is being done. And that justice is being seen to be delivered. From what I can make out, this is not going to happen unless audio/video recording of proceedings is enabled (exceptions for sensitive cases aside.).
Till then, this is what it looks like.
uploads3.wikiart.org/images/honore-daumier/gargantua.jpg
I thought it was a guaranteed right under Article 19(1(g), especially for an advocate !
Mr Khosla has filed a criminal complaint at Patiala House against Suresh Kait (J.) on 05-01-2015, demanding his punishment for defamation, and compensation of 25 cr, and followed it up also with a civil suit in the HC for 25 cr, filed also on 05-01-2015, but which also seeks a declaration that the Judges Protection Act of 1985 is ultra vires. The criminal complaint was listed and argued before MM Snigdha on 07-01-2015 for around 2 hours. The Court has posted it for further hearing on 30-01-2015.
I've heard Deepak Khosla argue on more than one occasion. Once he argued for almost 3 hours before Bhat and Waziri, JJs on their "inherent powers" (or lack thereof). The Bench seemed to be very impressed with his argument. Another time, I heard him argue for 2 hours before Justice Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani on violation of Oaths of Office by Judges, and the consequences for a Judge (he vacates office by 'operation of law', and must be re-sworn before he can discharge judicial duties). They too were impressed at his unassailable arguments ! (P. S. Ever seen Justice Nandrajog express appreciation in a hearing in his court ? well…that was one time he did.)
Look forward to all that again soon, Mr. Deepak Khosla ! Come back soon !
I have always wondered - why are litigants forced to sit in the last row, from where they can not see or hear anything? Why are litigants not allowed to park near the premises? Why are litigants forced to use other public facilities like toilets? Why are litigants made to run around generally, when they are the ones paying to seek "justice"?
The Justice Delivery System needs to introspect why a man chose at the age of 53 to sell his business and become a lawyer. What pushed him to this?
What's being projected, most unfortunately, as heroic litigation on the page is indeed nothing but blackmailing and unprofessional-ism. If say tomorrow young lawyers take inspiration from these pursuits in the courtrooms, then things are bound to worsen.
Lets learn where to draw lines.
You wouldn't see a Judge there in England like Sachdeva, J. Or Suresh Kait, J. Or S. N. Aggarwal, J. Or Kailash Gambhir, J (whose judgement injuncting a news channel from reporting on anything against himself should go down in the annals of India jurisprudence under the Chapter heading "nemo judex in causa sua, esse debet").
Ever read Lord Denning's views on criminal contempt, Mr. Where ? Or more recently, those of Justice Markandey Katju (who is even willing to duck a slipper thrown at him without interrupting the hearing or heavy-handedly throwing the Rule Book back at such slipper-thrower, so long as the contemner doesn't run off with his court's file) ? These are the kind of Judge-qualities you should be admitting you look up to.
The Collegium system, sadly, hasn't given us the best of what could have been.
We deserve better. Definitely better. Lets hope the JAC is a better solution.
groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/right-to-information-act-2005/ahya/right-to-information-act-2005/SQG73eIdEE4/Tp36er-wX0oJ
(2) Judges acting in most corrupt manner get away without punishment (a) groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/right-to-information-act-2005/first$20iim$20cat$202009$20pil$20documents/right-to-information-act-2005/YLeguEp-evc/a3sbKJKCQncJ
(b) groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/right-to-information-act-2005/301114/right-to-information-act-2005/B6Diqj4Acek/WQwNjEgd3LwJ (c) groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/right-to-information-act-2005/aibe$20cbi$20754$20755$20/right-to-information-act-2005/pDSK4bjIZKQ/LhOlzb1OwA8J (d)https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/right-to-information-act-2005/nse$20delhi$20high$20court$20months/right-to-information-act-2005/LHR1Wtsqi2o/mRa0-iTGZoUJ (e) groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/right-to-information-act-2005/dh$20waghela$20sos/right-to-information-act-2005/zHfF1ZdjxK0/o1agRE0m6NIJ
An ex parte order against an advocate ?
Some will go to any lengths to shut his voice of extremely-knowledgeable dissent.
I think that all this eminently-challengeable order is going to achieve is to make a “giant-killer” out of Deepak Khosla overnight ! Not to mention deliver another blow to the well-deserved reputation of opacity in our judiciary.
have known several lawyers in the courts ive seen who're willing to lick judicial boots and let the judges trample all over them, and those who disagree (respectfully and otherwise) and win cases for their clients
the comment by #4 regarded as controversial is one more symptom of the same disease which causes lawyers to be in a posture of half bent worship in court and then take out their frustration on the client in the chamber
Keep going..
commentsonjustice.blogspot.in/2015/01/i-am-ashamed-of-our-judiciarybhagvanji.html?spref=tw
(2) @BabubhaiVaghela ADD : Indian Judiciary - By Upper Castes.Of Upper Castes. For Upper Castes.
(3) Case pendency brings India down on World Bank index
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Case-pendency-brings-India-down-on-World-Bank-index/articleshow/45917019.cms
(4) Long Live CJIs adding to pending Constitutional Bench Cases
archive.indianexpress.com/news/754-constitution-bench-cases-among-66809-files-pending-in-sc/1105879/
And (5) Become Govt Servant once retire archive.indianexpress.com/news/21-sc-judges-retd-since--08-18-in-govt-panels/981224/
That was also my point of view till I read the order. But, the sheer number of incidents where Mr. Khosla has behaved in a manner that would probably have a customer removed from a loud and raucous bar leave alone a court, and the number of different judges that have recorded in orders the details of this kind of behaviour make me skeptical of Mr. Khosla's version of events.
The kind of behaviour that the order records Mr. Khosla as indulging in would clearly make having any kind of hearing or for that matter making any argument as an opposing counsel impossible. He deserves every bit of the punishment that he has been given and I think that anyone who reads the order in question would be hard pressed to disagree.
PS For those who don't have the time to read the whole order, I suggest that you spend 10 minutes and read upto para 25 or 30.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first