The government pleader moved the Court through advocate Akshay Shinde challenging an order of the single member committee of the BCMG relegating the matter to a disciplinary committee under the Bar Council of India.
Her petition stated that in a suit against the State government, a written statement had been filed where certain documents had been annexed.
The documents had been signed as true copies by another government lawyer. Shashtri meanwhile had signed the written statement which had the annexures appended.
The lawyer opposing the State government took objection to the ‘true copy sign’ and filed an application before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, alleging perjury and forgery against Shashtri.
In the affidavit filed in response to the complaint, Shashtri at the outset pointed out that the suit before the City Civil Court had been transferred from the High Court. She further pointed out that the true copy signatures were a requirement of the High Court as per a practice note (procedure guidelines issued by the High Court for filing proceedings).
The lawyer claimed that there is no such practice note.
Shashtri responded by stating that it was a ‘practice’ which was followed in the High Court pursuant to a judicial order.
Unsatisfied with this explanation, the lawyer filed a complaint before the BCMG.
After an order was passed by the BCMG requesting the disciplinary proceedings to initiate enquiry, Shashtri approached the High Court challenging the same.
Source: Barandbench
