Advocate Cannot Give Undertaking to Court Without Client’s Explicit Authority: Supreme Court

 

Advocate Cannot Give Undertaking to Court Without Client’s Explicit Authority: Supreme Court

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, emphasizing that an advocate cannot provide an undertaking to the court without explicit authorization from the client. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol, underscores the importance of respecting the client’s decision-making rights and the limitations on an advocate’s authority in legal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case, Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai (Deceased) by LRS. & Ors., arose from a dispute involving the alleged breach of an undertaking given by the appellants before the trial court. In 2007, the appellants, through their counsel, had submitted an undertaking stating that they would not alienate the suit property. This undertaking was recorded by the trial court and extended periodically. However, the appellants allegedly violated this undertaking by alienating the property to third parties.

In 2011, the respondents filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), alleging disobedience of the court’s injunction order. The appellants contended that their counsel had submitted the undertaking without their explicit authorization. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court reversed the decision, holding the appellants guilty of contempt. Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court’s decision, made several critical observations:

1. Fiduciary Relationship Between Advocate and Client: The Court emphasized that the lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, with the advocate acting as the client’s agent. This relationship imposes a duty on the advocate to act in the client’s best interest and to respect their decision-making autonomy. Consequently, any undertaking given to the court must be backed by explicit authorization from the client.
2. Unauthorized Undertaking Argument Rejected: The appellants argued that their counsel had submitted the 2007 undertaking without their authorization. However, the Court noted that the appellants had ample opportunity to contest the undertaking over the years but failed to do so. The Court found no evidence to support their claim of unauthorized submission, thereby dismissing this argument.
3. Contempt of Court: The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the appellants had willfully disobeyed the court’s order, warranting contempt proceedings. The Court reiterated that the power of contempt is essential to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
4. Modification of Punishment: While confirming the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court modified the punishment. Considering the advanced age of one of the appellants, the Court deleted the three-month civil imprisonment but increased the compensation amount from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs, with an interest rate of 6% from the date of the trial court’s judgment.

Legal Implications

This judgment serves as a reminder of the boundaries within which advocates must operate. While advocates are entrusted with significant responsibilities, they cannot act beyond the scope of their client’s instructions. The ruling also highlights the importance of timely action in legal proceedings, as delays in contesting unauthorized actions can weaken a party’s case.

Furthermore, the decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring compliance with court orders. The contempt jurisdiction, though exercised sparingly, remains a vital tool to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai reaffirms the principles governing the lawyer-client relationship and the sanctity of court orders. By holding that an advocate cannot give an undertaking without explicit client authorization, the judgment underscores the need for transparency and accountability in legal practice.