|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reprimanded three lawyers for drafting and filing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to declare fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 22 as unconstitutional and said that they showed a complete lack of knowledge of the law.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and PK Mishra made strong observations noting that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) have simply been reduced to signing counsel who sign off on briefs without reading the contents of the petition being filed. Article 20 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the rights of individuals in respect of conviction for offences, while Article 22 pertains to protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. The bench said that the purpose of having an AoR in the apex court is that there is a preliminary screening of the petitions and he should not just be a signing authority for petitions. The top court questioned how such a PIL could have been filed under Article 32 and inquired about the AoR and drafting counsel who had approved it. "It is happening too often. AoR should not become a signing authority only. It is troubling us," the bench said. "Somebody just gets up, you collect your fee and file a petition. This is not acceptable. Your bar licenses should be revoked. How can such a plea be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution? Who is the Advocate-on-Record and drafting counsel, how did they sign off on this? There has to be some responsibility. And you (arguing) counsel, how did you agree? What is your standing in the bar? This is too serious. It has shocked our conscience that such a petition has been filed," the bench added It directed the three lawyers to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which they filed such a petition before the court. (ANI)
|
