InĀ Lalit Mohan Das vs. Advocate General, Orissa & Another, AIR 1957 SC 250, this Court observed as under: "A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court. In suggesting that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the appellant was adding insult to injury, because the Munsif had merely upheld an order of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees, which order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalizing the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice; such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service; if brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice."
In Lalit Mohan Das vs. Advocate General, Orissa & Another, AIR 1957 SC
250, this Court observed as under: "A member of the Bar undoubtedly
owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can
fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even
submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of
that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the
Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must
uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything
to bring the Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly
overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of
partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court. In suggesting
that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the appellant was
14
Shri Amar H. Manjrekar
Smt. Shubhangi A. Manjrekar
adding insult to injury, because the Munsif had merely upheld an order
of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees,
which order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalizing
the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice;
such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an
individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service; if
brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice."
35. The status of an Advocate as an "officer of the court",- owing a
duty beyond her brief, to uphold the law and at all times act in fairness
towards the Court, her colleagues and her client, without using sharp
tactics or illegitimate means has been emphasized repeatedly in
several decisions. The Supreme Court in Lalit Mohan Das v Advocate
General explained this16: