Intricate Duty of Advocates: Supreme Court Stresses on Rigorous Fact Verification

In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court shed light on the multifaceted role of advocates in settling pleadings and presenting arguments based on client instructions. However, the Court underscored an inherent duty that advocates bear—an obligation to meticulously verify facts from the case records.

The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, articulated that while clients provide instructions, advocates, as officers of the court, are bound to facilitate the administration of justice by ensuring accurate and comprehensive disclosure of material facts. The Court emphasized the need for a high standard of professionalism and legal acumen, especially for designated senior advocates.

“Though advocates may settle pleadings and argue in court based on client instructions, their duty to diligently verify the facts from the case record, leveraging their legal acumen, cannot be overlooked,” stated the judgment crafted by Justice Trivedi.

This elucidation surfaced during the dismissal of the bail plea filed by Saumya Chaurasia, former deputy secretary to the ex-Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, Bhupesh Baghel, in a money laundering case.

Chaurasia contested the denial of bail by the Chhattisgarh High Court, asserting that certain scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had been omitted from the chargesheet. The Supreme Court, while addressing this contention, pointed out a crucial lapse in the verification of facts by Chaurasia’s legal team.

The Court highlighted that special leave petitions should adhere to the pleadings before the lower court and any essential annexures, as per the Supreme Court Rules. In this context, the oversight in verifying facts, where the chargesheet was not actually presented before the high court, drew criticism from the bench.

Despite deeming the Special Leave Petition dismissible on this procedural ground, the Court proceeded to assess the merits of the case. Ultimately, the Court not only denied bail but also imposed an extraordinary cost of one lakh for the dissemination of inaccurate statements in the appeal, directing the sum to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.