If I understood correctly, he said he has a duty to the court only in cases in which he was actually appearing in court as an advocate. And by implication, in all other respects (eg Mrs Misra's case) all bets are off. Could that be right?
Whether he is right in the first point is debatable. He has a duty to act with independence and integrity in any event, so I don't think he is helped much.
If I understood correctly, he said he has a duty to the court only in cases in which he was actually appearing in court as an advocate. And by implication, in all other respects (eg Mrs Misra's case) all bets are off. Could that be right?
Whether he is right in the first point is debatable. He has a duty to act with independence and integrity in any event, so I don't think he is helped much.