It is for the learned court – not lawyers – to decide on the assertions made by the parties in the form of pleadings or while setting up a case, the Delhi High Court held in a plea alleging professional misconduct. The Delhi High Court Thursday held that it is not part of a lawyer’s duty to verify the authenticity of the instructions they receive from clients.The observation recorded by a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela came in an appeal against a single judge’s order by a litigant Chand Mehra who had alleged professional misconduct on the part of the lawyers engaged by the respondent parties in respect of certain legal proceedings initiated against him under provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.The bench recorded, “An Advocate is bound by the instructions given to him by his client and it does not form part of his duty to verify the truthfulness or veracity of such instructions especially for the reason that the assertions made by the parties before the Court in the form of pleadings or setting up a case are to be decided by the learned Court concerned in the proceedings and not by the lawyers representing the respective parties.”Mehra, in his appeal before the division bench, challenged the orders of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) which had dismissed his complaint against the respondent parties’ lawyers. He had contended that the lawyers “ought to have ascertained the facts with due diligence and only after verification could have contested the matter on behalf of their respective client”.Upholding the single judge’s decision earlier in April, the division bench too refused to interfere with the decision of the Bar bodies.The division bench’s ruling, reiterated the BCI’s stance wherein while dealing with a complaint and observing that no case of professional misconduct was made out against the lawyers, it had held in November 2024 that under BCI rules, it is the duty of the advocate “to act on the instructions of their clients and that an advocate cannot sit and make an investigation of their client’s case before representing such client” in courts.The BCI had also held that an advocate cannot be prosecuted for the reason that his client’s case was false.The legal fraternity had recently criticised the move of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) which had in June sent summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to senior advocates Pratap Venugopal and Arvind Datar in connection with a case in which they had rendered legal advice.