MP High Court orders probe into advocate Rohit Dubey
- MP High Court orders State Bar Council to investigate advocate Rohit Dubey.
- Dubey allegedly failed to inform his client about critical case developments.
- The court found the client was provided with incorrect information via WhatsApp.
- An ex parte order was issued against the client due to the advocate's negligence.
- The court ruled the client should not be penalized for her lawyer's lapses.
The court further ordered the petitioner to serve a copy of its order to the State Bar Council to facilitate potential suo motu action against the advocate.
Justice Digvinay Singh ordered police to provide seven days notice before any arrest, noting the professor has cooperated with the investigation. The court observed that the university has not provided names of 11 students who filed complaints, and their statements remain unrecorded.
Akoijam denied these allegations, calling them unverified claims by "racist schemers" attempting to damage his reputation.
Also on November 5, 2026, Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya rejected a ₹25 lakh defamation suit filed by advocate Mantosh Prasad Sinha against State Bank of India officials following his removal from the bank's panel. The court stated in an order dated October 27 that the right to practice law is a right to appear when engaged, not a right to be engaged by a specific client. Sinha served on the SBI panel for the Jamui Civil Court from 1983 until 2018, when he was removed following a dispute over the genuineness of a title investigation report.
A civil court in Jamui had previously rejected the bank officials' application to dismiss the defamation suit in October 2024. The High Court noted the plaint failed to identify specific persons to whom allegedly defamatory statements were communicated or which bank official was responsible.
Client misled by advocate regarding case developments
The court determined that advocate Rohit Dubey failed to inform his client about case developments, which resulted in the trial court issuing an ex parte order against her. After reviewing WhatsApp chats, the court found that the petitioner consistently followed up with her advocate and received incorrect information regarding the case status.
The High Court ruled that the petitioner should not be penalized for the negligent acts or deliberate lapses of her legal counsel.
Trial court orders challenged by Chandigarh-based litigant
The petition filed with the High Court sought to set aside trial court orders dated February 2, 2026, and September 1, 2026, as well as ex parte proceedings from September 25, 2025. The petitioner's counsel argued that Rohit Dubey failed to object to a status quo order during the first date of appearance, an action the court described as unusual.
Respondent's counsel claims client had opportunity to participate
The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had been given opportunities to participate in the proceedings but failed to utilize them.
Client maintained regular contact via WhatsApp
The petitioner, a Chandigarh-based litigant, maintained regular contact with Rohit Dubey via WhatsApp regarding her case.
Frequently Asked Questions
- MP High Court (tavily.com)
- Former IDAC head Adv Andrea Johnson and ... (facebook.com)
- public service vacancy circular 39 of 2026 (gov.za)
- Act is panicking about Tamaki and Max Harris – The Standard (thestandard.nz)
- News | Letters & Science (ls.berkeley.edu)
- Inside Design | Inside Gold Coast (insidegoldcoast.com.au)
- Delhi court halts police action against JNU professor, a Congress MP, in sexual harassment case (scroll.in)
- Lawyer can't sue client for defamation for ending professional engagement: Patna High Court (barandbench.com)
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google