2016 (12) TMI 420 - HC - Indian Laws

Admissibility of vakalatnama filed by a new advocate in the absence of no objection of the advocate already on record - Held that - On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can t be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for no objection of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for no objection of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate.

Summary

Issues:
Whether a new advocate's vakalatnama can be accepted without the 'no objection' of the advocate already on record.

Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of whether a new advocate's vakalatnama can be accepted without the 'no objection' of the advocate already on record. The Registry raised an objection to the vakalatnama of the appellant filed by a new advocate, stating that it lacked the 'no objection' of the previous advocate. The appellant's counsel argued that a litigant has the absolute right to appoint an advocate of their choice and to change advocates without needing 'no objection' from the previous advocate. The counsel cited Supreme Court decisions and a Division Bench decision of the High Court in support of this argument.

The Court referred to observations made by the Supreme Court in previous cases, emphasizing a litigant's freedom to change advocates for various reasons. The Court highlighted that an advocate must return the case file to the client upon termination of engagement, and any refusal to do so amounts to misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court reiterated that a party has an absolute right to appoint a new advocate in any proceeding, civil or criminal, without being denied this right. The Court emphasized that any rule or law imposing restrictions on this right cannot be mandatory, and Courts should not require 'no objection' from the advocate already on record to accept a vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that there is no concept of an irrevocable vakalatnama, and a party can withdraw authorization from an advocate at any time. If an advocate has a genuine claim against the client regarding fees, the appropriate course is to return the brief and address the claim through legal means. The Court concluded that a party cannot be denied the right to appoint a new advocate of their choice, and the objection raised by the Registry regarding the vakalatnama was overruled. The Court directed that in the future, the Registry should not require 'no objection' from the advocate already on record to accept a vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.