Changing Counsel After Conclusion Of Arguments : Allahabad HC Asks Bar Council To Consider Issue Of Lawyers...
Changing Counsel After Conclusion of Arguments: Allahabad High Court’s View
1. Context and Issue:
In litigation, parties have the right to engage or change their counsel at any stage.
However, changing counsel after the conclusion of arguments in a case is generally discouraged due to procedural and judicial efficiency concerns.
The question arises: Should a party be allowed to change lawyers after arguments are concluded but before judgment is pronounced?
2. Allahabad High Court’s Concern:
The Allahabad HC has recognized that frequent or late-stage changes of counsel can cause:
Delay in judicial proceedings,
Confusion in case presentation,
Waste of judicial time and resources.
The court has asked the Bar Council to consider framing guidelines to regulate such changes to maintain discipline and decorum in court.
This reflects the court’s attempt to balance the party’s right to counsel choice and the need for efficient justice delivery.
3. Legal Principles on Changing Counsel:
Freedom to choose counsel: Parties have a constitutional and statutory right to select and change their advocate.
Duty towards the court: Advocates must maintain professionalism and avoid actions that delay proceedings.
Judicial discretion: Courts can regulate procedure to ensure that changes do not cause unnecessary delay or prejudice to other parties.
Timing matters: Changing counsel before or during early stages is generally allowed; after conclusion of arguments, it is often restricted.
4. Relevant Case Laws
1. Union of India v. M.C. Chockalingam AIR 1961 SC 638
The Supreme Court held that while parties have a right to choose advocates, this must be balanced against the court’s need for orderly conduct of proceedings.
2. Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1
Emphasized the importance of procedural discipline and timely conduct in legal proceedings.
3. G. Shanker v. State of Karnataka AIR 2012 SC 1122
Advocates and parties should not indulge in dilatory tactics, including unnecessary changes in counsel to delay trials.
4. S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853
Courts can impose conditions or refuse permission to change counsel if it causes unreasonable delay or prejudice.
5. Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. (2000) 5 SCC 597
The court recognized the importance of preventing last-minute changes to protect the integrity of judicial process.
5. Practical Implications
Parties should avoid changing counsel after conclusion of arguments unless there are exceptional and genuine reasons.
If allowed, the court may impose conditions such as:
Time limits for new counsel to familiarize themselves,
Restrictions on adjournments,
Security for costs or other measures to protect opposing parties.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to change counsel | Fundamental right of parties but not absolute |
| Changing after arguments | Generally discouraged to avoid delay and confusion |
| Allahabad HC stance | Asked Bar Council to frame guidelines regulating late changes |
| Court’s discretion | Courts can refuse or regulate change to protect justice |
| Case law | Balances party rights with judicial efficiency and fairness |
| Practical advice | Avoid late-stage changes unless genuine necessity arises |
7. Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s initiative to involve the Bar Council in considering guidelines on changing counsel after conclusion of arguments reflects a mature approach to ensuring justice is delivered efficiently without compromising parties’ rights. The courts maintain discretionary power to balance freedom to choose counsel with the need to prevent delays and protect the integrity of the judicial process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments