Gauhati High Court: Advocates Must Verify Identity and Genuineness of Litigants Before Signing Vakalatnama

Case: Harbinder Singh Kalsi & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case No.: WA/51/2026
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

The Gauhati High Court has cautioned advocates to exercise due care before accepting and signing a Vakalatnama, particularly when a matter is referred by another advocate. The Court observed that lawyers must satisfy themselves about the identity and genuineness of the person claiming to be a litigant.

The observation was made by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in Harbinder Singh Kalsi & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors., WA/51/2026, decided on August 31, 2026. The matter arose from a writ petition filed in 2016 in the name of Ms. Beolin Kharbhih, who claimed to be the daughter of a former Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petition sought a Court-monitored probe into the death of her father.

During the proceedings, questions arose regarding the existence of the petitioner. A CID inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner could not be located at the address provided by her. The Single Judge consequently concluded that the writ petition had been filed by a fictitious person. The writ petition was dismissed, and a fine of ₹50,000 each was imposed upon the advocates who had signed the Vakalatnama. The Single Judge also directed that the matter be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action.

The advocates challenged the decision before the Division Bench. They submitted that they had accepted the Vakalatnama in good faith and had taken steps to satisfy themselves that the petitioner was a genuine person. According to their submission, the petitioner had been physically present on the High Court campus when the Vakalatnama was executed and had also been identified before the Oath Commissioner by the registered clerk of the advocate who had introduced the matter.

The advocates also brought to the Court’s attention a caveat petition filed by one of the respondents before the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), against the same petitioner in connection with a property dispute. This, according to them, contradicted the allegation that the petitioner was a fictitious person.

The Division Bench agreed that the advocates could not be held responsible merely because the petitioner could not subsequently be located. The Court observed that an advocate cannot be expected to act as a guarantor of a litigant’s physical whereabouts after a case has been filed.

At the same time, the Bench cautioned advocates to be more careful when accepting Vakalatnamas, particularly where they are approached by a fellow advocate to appear in a matter. The Court stressed that advocates should make reasonable inquiries into the correctness of the case and satisfy themselves that the person represented before the Court is genuinely the litigant and is not misrepresenting their identity.

While upholding the dismissal of the writ petition, the Division Bench found that the imposition of ₹50,000 costs on each advocate was not justified in the circumstances. It also held that referring the advocates to the Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings would amount to harsh treatment in the facts of the case.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the fine imposed upon the advocates as well as the direction for disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council. The appeal was consequently allowed to that extent.

The ruling serves as an important reminder that while advocates are not responsible for monitoring the whereabouts of their clients throughout litigation, they are expected to exercise professional caution at the stage of accepting a Vakalatnama and ensure, to the extent reasonably possible, that the person instructing them is a genuine litigant.