JOIN USLawyer appearing on both sides irks SC
A senior advocate, appearing for a private institution in one year and representing the regulatory body another year taking a completely opposite stand was described as “serious” thing by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The apex court decided to issue notice to the chairman of the Bar Council of India and Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi in order to settle the issue. The court also appointed senior advocate Fali S Nariman as amicus curiae to assist it.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh found himself enmeshed in an embarrassing situation during the hearing on a batch of petitions relating to recognition to several medical colleges.
A bench of Justices T S Thakur and V Gopala Gowda saw it beneath professional standards after it was pointed out that Singh had defended Punjab-based Chintapurni Medical College and Hospital in the academic year 2013-14 and now as advocate of the Medical Council of India.
“You have appeared for a litigant, you have certain information, how can you now represent the regulatory body and claim that it does not fulfil the criteria. You should have recused. You can't do it, it is very serious thing,” the bench told Singh.
Singh maintained that since it is a different academic year, he can appear for the Medical Council of India. Moreover, he submitted that he was not using any privileged information received from the college when he appeared for it.
Singh also submitted there have been instances when advocates after appointment as government law officers represented the opposing parties.
“Please argue on your professional ability to argue the case. We want to settle this issue once for all. You can't do it. For ethical standards, even slightest hint is enough,” the bench told Singh.
He sought time to represent his detailed point of arguments on the subject.
However, he maintained that he suffered no disability and there was no conflict of interest as academic year in two cases is different.
The court said, “Ex-facie (on the face of it), the two stands (taken by Singh) are contradictory to each other.”
On being asked, senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan said the question is conflict of interest which does not get obviated on change of academic year. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the issue was a serious one and had far-reaching implication on professional ethics and properity.
The court fixed the matter for consideration on Friday to resolve the question if a counsel who appeared for an institution is barred to represent the regulatory institution.