E. S. REDDI versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 01-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
E.S. REDD! 
v. 
CHIEF SECRETARY.: GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR. 
MAY 1, 1987 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY. JJ.] 
'Senior Counsel' designated as such by the Court-Responsibility 
~ 
to put pleadings into proper and satisfactory fonn-Need for mutual 
respect between the Bench and the Bar while advancing arguments. 
'-. 
c 
An ollicer involved in a defalcation case who was suspended, 
challenged the order of suspension under Art. 14 of the Constitution on 
the ground that another ollicer similarly situate had merely been trans-
ferred. The order was quashed by a Single Judge of the High Court, 
but, on appeal, his judgment was reversed by the Division Bench. The 
D 
matter came up before the Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. 
The counter-allidavit filed by the State Government indicated 
that it had initiated action to prosecute two other ollicers involved in the 
case. When the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing, the Court 
"-( 
made an interim order directing the counsel to convey to the State 
E 
Government the Court's concern at the petitioner alone having been 
placed under suspension and, indicating that if the State Government 
did not pass any order placing the other otlicers, who, on a perusal of 
the investigation report, appeared to be equally culpable, under suspen-
sion, it may become necessary for the Court to revoke the suspension of 
..... 
the Special Leave Petitioner at the next hearing. When the matter came 
. _, 
F 
up again, it had to be adjourned by the Court with another interim 
order directing the State Government to pass necessary orders for sos-
pension of all the delinquent ollicers. In anticipation of action by the 
State Government, two other ollicers involved in the case filed appllca-
tions praying for recall of the two interim orders aforesaid. However, 
the two ollicers in question were also placed under suspension before 
G 
the matter tinally came up for hearing. 
The Court impressed upon counsel appearing for the applicants 
who had prayed for recall of the interim orders that the proper course 
.+ 
~ 
for them was to move the State Government by way of appeal and/or 
representation against their suspension. While counsel for one of the 
H 
applicants accepted that suggestion and withdrew the application, 
counsel for the other applicant did not do so. The latter applicant had, 
146 
E.S. REDD! v. CHIEF SECY. GOVT OF A.P. 
147 
in his application, made certain reckless allegations and cast aspersions A 
on the Court. The counsel appearing for him gave the impression that 
the application had been settled by him without noticing the offending 
averments but went on to advance arguments with undue vehemence 
and unwarranted passion. 
-~-
The Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petitiou as infruc-
B 
tuous and expressing disapproval of the manner in which arguments 
had been advanced on behalf of one of the applicants. 
·'--<. 
HELD: By virtue of the pre-eminence which 'Senior Counsel' 
enjoy In the profession, they not only carry greater responsibilities but 
they also act as a model to the junior members of the profession. A C 
senior counsel more or less occupies a position akin to a Queen's counsel 
in England next after the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. It 
is an honour and privilege conferred on Advocates of standing and 
experience by the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court. They thus 
become leading counsel and take precedence on all counsel not having 
that rank. A senior counsel though he cannot draw up pleadings of the D 
party, can nevertheless be engaged "to settle" I.e. to put the pleadings 
into "proper and satisfactory form" and hence a senior counsel settling 
pleadings has a more onerous responsibility as otherwise the blame for 
improper pleadings will be laid at his doors. [153C·EI 
In this case, not only were the arguments advanced with undue E 
vehemence and unwarranted passion, reftectlng identification of 
interests beyond established conventions but were of degrees not usual 
of enlightened senior counsel to adopt. The majesty of law and the 
dignity of Courts cannot be maintained unless there is mutual respect 
between the Bench and the Bar and the counsel act in run realisation 
of their duty to the Court alongside their duty to their clients and F 
have the grace to reconcile themselves when their pleas and arguments 
do not find acceptance with the Court. Neither rhetoric nor tempestu· 
ous arguments can constitute the sine

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.