Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v State (Delhi Administration) (1984)

This is a short order, barely a page long, but it is one of the most quoted statements on an advocate's duty to the court and to the client. An accused asked the Supreme Court to withdraw its direction that his trial run from day to day, because his own advocates did not want to appear daily in a long trial. The Court refused, and in doing so said in plain words that an advocate who accepts a criminal brief is bound to attend the trial every day it sits. Failing to do so is a breach of professional duty.

The case is the answer whenever a question asks whether an advocate may take a brief and then treat attendance as a matter of convenience.

By an order of 2 December 1983, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's special leave petition against an order of the Delhi High Court refusing him bail until after a witness, Rani Chaudhary, had been examined. While dismissing it, the Court directed that once the trial began it should proceed from day to day.

The petitioner then filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition asking the Court to delete that direction. His ground was that his two advocates were "not prepared to appear in the case from day-to-day as the trial is likely to be prolonged."

1. Should the direction that the Sessions trial proceed from day to day be withdrawn?
2. Can the unwillingness of the accused's own advocates to attend daily be a ground for it?

The petition was dismissed.

Day-to-day trial

The Court called it "an entirely wholesome practice for the trial to go on from day-to-day." Continuous trial, it said, brings two benefits: "Not only will it result in expedition, it will also result in the elimination of manoeuvre and mischief." And it serves both sides: "It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the trial proceeds from day-to-day."

The Court then laid down how a Sessions Judge should manage the trial:

• "It is necessary to realise that Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal."
• Before the trial begins, the judge must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence is available. If it is not, "he may postpone the case, but only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period."
• "Once the trial commences, he should, except for a very pressing reason which makes an adjournment inevitable, proceed de die in diem until the trial is concluded." (De die in diem means from day to day.)

The advocate's duty

The Court was "unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced by the petitioner." It then stated the rule for which the case is cited: it is the duty of every advocate who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day to day. It added: "We cannot over-stress the duty of the Advocate to attend to the trial from day-to-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend."

A Sessions trial, once commenced, should proceed from day to day and be adjourned only for a very pressing reason that makes an adjournment inevitable. An advocate who accepts a brief in a criminal case must attend the trial from day to day; if he fails to do so, having accepted the brief, he commits a breach of professional duty. The advocate's reluctance to attend a long trial is no ground for relaxing a day-to-day direction.

• Direct question: What are the duties of an advocate towards the court and the client? Discuss with case law. Use this case for the duty of attendance: accepting a brief carries an obligation to be present every day the trial sits.
• Problem question: an advocate accepts a criminal brief, then seeks repeated adjournments because the trial is long and he has other work. Answer: the Court's words — failing to attend after accepting the brief is "a breach of his professional duty" — and the Sessions Judge should refuse adjournments except for a very pressing reason.
• Linking point: the case is relied on in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India (2003) for the proposition that an advocate who accepts a brief in a criminal case must attend day to day. Pair the two when writing on an advocate's duty to appear.
• Criminal procedure angle: quote the three-step guidance for Sessions Judges (evidence ready before the trial begins; postpone only on the strongest ground and for the shortest period; then proceed de die in diem) in any answer on delay in criminal trials.