Delhi High Court Warns Litigants Against Blaming Lawyers for Delays in Seeking Justice

The Delhi High Court recently criticized the growing tendency of blaming lawyers for delays in approaching courts, stressing that litigants also have a responsibility to stay on top of their cases. This observation came in a case titled Rahul Mavai vs. Union of India & Ors., where a Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta refused to condone a six-year delay in filing a petition.

Court’s Strong Message to Litigants:

The judges made it clear that litigants cannot entirely shift the blame onto their lawyers when delays occur. “A litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to Counsel,” the Court remarked, adding that such excuses are often used to sidestep accountability.

In this case, the petitioner argued that his lawyer misled him, claiming the lawyer had assured him over the phone that the case was progressing, though it was never filed. He further stated that financial hardships prevented him from following up personally and that he only learned about the truth six years later. The petitioner had even lodged a complaint against the lawyer with the District Bar Association.

Why the Court Rejected the Argument:

The Court was not persuaded by these claims, pointing out that vague allegations and a lack of concrete evidence could not justify the lengthy delay. The judges emphasized that if a litigant alleges lawyer negligence, they must provide clear proof, such as records of regular communication and evidence of being actively misled. “This material must be acceptable and convincing,” the Court noted.

Broader Takeaways from the Judgment:

The Court highlighted an important principle: while lawyers are responsible for pursuing cases diligently, litigants also share the duty to remain engaged and informed. Delays cannot simply be excused by blaming the lawyer. Moreover, the Court disapproved of the increasing practice of using complaints against lawyers as a cover for negligence or lack of effort by litigants themselves.

Final Decision:

Finding no reasonable explanation for the six-year delay, the Court dismissed the petition, stating, “We disapprove the unwholesome practice of explaining away inordinate delays by blaming the Counsel.”

This judgment serves as a wake-up call for litigants, reminding them that the responsibility for justice is a shared one, requiring active participation from both the client and their lawyer.