Advocate’s Role in Litigation: Supreme Court’s Stance on Legal Ethics

Introduction

The legal profession is held to high ethical standards, requiring advocates to maintain impartiality and professionalism. A recent Supreme Court ruling, delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, reaffirmed this principle, emphasizing that advocates must avoid becoming litigants or sureties. The case, Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Anr., underscored the judiciary’s reluctance to entertain petitions where an advocate represents themselves as a litigant, highlighting potential ethical concerns. This article delves into the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the broader implications for legal ethics, and the role of lawyers in upholding the integrity of the legal system.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who appeared as a petitioner-in-person. The PIL sought a review of laws related to dowry and domestic violence, arguing that they were being misused to harass husbands and their families. The Court, however, held that such matters fall within the domain of the legislature and are not for judicial intervention.

During the proceedings, Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that an advocate must not become a litigant, stating:

“An advocate must avoid being a litigant and must never be a surety. You are exposing yourself. We might impose costs. You are a practicing advocate. Why do you want to expose yourself as a party?”

The bench dismissed the PIL, cautioning against the professional risks associated with self-representation and direct involvement in legal disputes.

The Ethical Boundaries of Advocacy

The Supreme Court’s observations highlight crucial ethical considerations in the legal profession. The Bar Council of India (BCI) prescribes strict guidelines to ensure advocates maintain professional independence. Some key ethical responsibilities include:

1. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest – Advocates must not act in matters where they have a personal stake, ensuring objectivity in legal proceedings.
2. Maintaining Professional Integrity – Lawyers should refrain from actions that compromise their professional reputation or the dignity of the judiciary.
3. Preserving the Legal Profession’s Credibility – By avoiding personal involvement in litigation, advocates uphold public trust in the legal system.

In Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, the Court reinforced these principles, warning against the risks of self-representation, which can lead to ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest.

Judicial Perspective on Advocates as Litigants

The Supreme Court’s stance aligns with past rulings that discourage advocates from personally engaging in litigation. Some notable precedents include:

• J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohammad Yusuf (1993) – The Supreme Court ruled that an advocate must uphold ethical standards and refrain from acting in matters where they have a personal interest.
• D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996) – The Court emphasized the need for advocates to exercise restraint and professional decorum.
• R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) – The judgment reiterated the duty of lawyers to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the legal profession.

The ruling in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India reinforces these principles, preventing potential misuse of legal forums by advocates seeking personal remedies.

Broader Implications for the Legal Profession

The Supreme Court’s observations extend beyond individual cases, reflecting on the larger responsibilities of the legal community. Key takeaways include:

1. Impact on Legal Practice – Advocates who engage in personal litigation risk damaging their professional reputation and client trust.
2. Judicial Burden and Misuse of PILs – The ruling discourages frivolous PILs that may stem from personal grievances rather than genuine public interest.
3. Strengthening Legislative Oversight – By deferring to legislative processes, the Court reaffirms the separation of powers, ensuring that legal reforms are addressed through appropriate channels.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s remark, “There is no burden upon us. We have taken an oath, we have to decide cases as per law,” highlights the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality, dismissing claims that such cases overburden the system.

The Advocate’s Role in Justice Delivery

Advocates serve as officers of the court, playing a pivotal role in justice administration. To maintain this role effectively, they must:

• Adhere to Ethical Conduct – Advocates must uphold the dignity of the profession, avoiding conflicts of interest.
• Respect Judicial Processes – Personal grievances should not be pursued through professional privileges.
• Ensure Legal Representation for Clients – Lawyers should prioritize their duties toward clients over personal litigation pursuits.

The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a crucial reminder that professional ethics must be upheld to preserve the sanctity of the legal system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the PIL in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India sets a precedent for maintaining ethical boundaries in the legal profession. By advising advocates against self-representation and acting as sureties, the Court upholds professional integrity and judicial decorum. The ruling serves as a reminder that legal professionals must navigate their roles with caution, ensuring that personal interests do not interfere with their duties as advocates. Upholding these ethical standards is essential to preserving public confidence in the legal system and the judiciary’s impartiality.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I