The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside ex parte orders passed against a Chandigarh-based litigant and directed the State Bar Council to examine allegations of professional misconduct against her advocate. The decision, rendered by Justice Sandeep N Bhatt, arose from a petition challenging orders dated February 2, 2026, and September 1, 2026, passed by a trial court at Indore, as well as ex parte proceedings recorded on September 25, 2025.
The petitioner had engaged Advocate Rohit Dubey to represent her in the Indore Bench. Residing in Chandigarh, she relied entirely on her counsel for updates regarding the proceedings. The petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that she routinely enquired about the case status through WhatsApp messages. Despite these communications, the trial court proceeded ex parte against her for non-appearance.
What constituted professional misconduct in the advocate's conduct before the Madhya Pradesh High Court?
The High Court found that the advocate provided incorrect information to the client regarding case developments and failed to object to a status quo order on the first date of appearance. This conduct prejudiced the litigant's rights and amounted to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules.
After examining the WhatsApp correspondence produced on record, the bench observed that the petitioner had consistently followed up with her advocate. The record prima facie indicated that, for reasons best known to the advocate, incorrect information had been communicated to the client. The court further noted it was unusual that the same advocate had earlier raised no objection to the grant of a status quo order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Justice Bhatt held that the petitioner could not be made to suffer due to the negligent acts or deliberate lapses of her counsel. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the court allowed the petition. It directed the trial court to afford the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court also expected the petitioner to ensure her presence or that of her counsel on every date fixed for proceedings.
Expressing serious concern over advocates failing to discharge professional responsibilities with integrity, the bench directed that a copy of the order be served on the State Bar Council. The Council was asked to take note of the facts and, if required, initiate suo motu action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The court further observed that it was open for the Bar Council to inquire into any role played by the advocate for the defendant to ascertain whether there was any collusion between the parties and their respective counsel. The Council was expected to proceed appropriately and take action if the conduct of the advocates warranted it, to maintain higher standards of the legal profession.
Provision / Aspect | Court's Observation |
|---|---|
Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961 | Invoked as the statutory basis for the State Bar Council to examine and take action against the advocate for professional misconduct. |
Bar Council of India Rules | Cited alongside the Act as the regulatory framework governing professional standards. |
Article 227, Constitution of India | Invoked by the High Court to set aside the ex parte orders and prevent miscarriage of justice caused by counsel's negligence. |
Advocate's Conduct | Failure to inform client of proceedings; providing incorrect updates; not objecting to status quo order on first appearance. |
Direction to Bar Council | Examine allegations, inquire into possible collusion, initiate suo motu action if warranted. |
The High Court's order underscores the obligation of advocates to maintain transparent communication with clients, particularly when litigants reside in distant jurisdictions and depend entirely on counsel for procedural updates. By referring the matter to the disciplinary authority, the court signaled that professional negligence causing prejudice to a party's substantive rights will attract regulatory scrutiny beyond the immediate remedial relief granted in the specific litigation.