New Delhi [India], August 23 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Friday took a serious view of the refusal by a counsel to argue on account of the lawyers’ strike. The court said that the counsel had failed to argue on behalf of the accused.
Lawyers have called two two-day strike against the notification issued by the LG on the deposition by cops from the police station.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne recorded in the order that counsel for three accused refused to argue on framing of charges and therefore forsook the right to argue on their behalf.
The court noted that despite being given the opportunity three times, the counsel for the accused refused to argue, through video conferencing mode. Thereafter, the court passed the order on August 22.
“The court is constrained to record that the learned Counsel for accused persons who do not intend to advance arguments on the charge and have therefore forsaken the right to argue on their behalf,” Special Judge Gogne said in the order.
However, the court has granted liberty to these three accused to file their written submissions.
“In the interest of fair hearing, however, the said accused are at liberty to file a written submission within one week,” the court ordered.
The matter has been listed tomorrow for arguements on the charge on behalf of Rabri Devi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Vikas Kumar and Sanjay Kumar.
The court noted that during the hearing, Counsel Nikhil Fernandes was available online for the said accused and submitted that he is unwilling to address arguments today on account of a strike by lawyers.
It was further submitted that since the strike shall be continuing till Saturday, he shall not be advancing arguments on 23.08.2025 either, and a date for arguments thereafter may be given by the court.
The court said, “The court has no reason to comment on the validity of the purported ‘strike’ by lawyers. The limited issue for consideration is the prayer of the learned Counsel for adjournment on account of the above circumstance.
The court said that the Counsel had advanced arguements on behalf of three other accused on 11.08.2025. The matter was then directed to be listed for arguments on behalf of the remaining accused represented by him today.
The court stressed, “Since the counsel has previously argued only on behalf of certain accused and was granted a specific date for today to address arguments for the remaining accused, there is no ground to grant adjournment when the arguments on charge are being heard on a day-to-day basis since 01.07.2025.”
Notably, 92 out of 99 accused persons have already advanced arguments, the court added.
“It is also disconcerting that despite the counsel being available online and thus being in a position to advance arguments in the hybrid mode, the said opportunity is not sought to be availed. The court forms the clear conclusion that the ld. Counsel is deliberately avoiding arguments,” Special Judge Gogne said.
The court observed, “With the option of online arguments being consciously rejected, the grounds for adjournment are entirely self-serving and completely unexceptional. The submission of the learned Counsel is, in effect, a refusal to argue and occasions a wanton underutilisation of judicial time.” (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
