Whenever there is a conflict between the lawyer’s duty to the court and their duty to the client, he has to give preference to his duty to the court over his duty to the client, the Supreme Court observed In Re: Peddi Raju and Others [Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2025].
The Supreme Court clarified that a section of the advocates is under a misconception that the advocates duty to the client is paramount, and prevails over his duty to the court.
The Supreme Court wanted this misconception to be rooted out by an emphatic judgment and therefore devoted a part of the judgment for the purpose.
