Recently, the Supreme Court quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against two advocates, holding that a complaint cannot be referred to a disciplinary committee without a clear “reason to believe” that professional misconduct has occurred under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court emphasised that a mere cryptic order without discussing the allegations is legally unsustainable and cautioned Bar Councils that such referrals could have serious consequences on an advocate’s career and reputation.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from two separate complaints filed before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) alleging professional misconduct by two advocates. In the first instance, a complaint was filed against an advocate who had merely identified the plaintiff in consent terms filed before the High Court. In the second case, a complaint was lodged against an advocate for identifying the deponent of an affidavit filed with a chamber summons, alleging that the advocate was responsible for the contents of the affidavit which were later claimed to be false.
Both complaints were referred to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) without any detailed examination of the allegations or reasons recorded by the Bar Council. Aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings, the advocates approached the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Counsel for the respondent-advocates contended that the referral orders were cryptic and failed to record even the basic allegations from the complaints. It was argued that there was no professional relationship between the complainant and the advocates, and mere identification of a party or attestation of an affidavit could not amount to misconduct. It was further submitted that Section 35 of the Advocates Act mandates the Bar Council to record its satisfaction that misconduct has occurred before referring any complaint to the DC, a requirement that was wholly disregarded.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, after examining the record, made strong observations on the role of Bar Councils and the statutory requirement under Section 35. It noted, “Recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry.”
The Court found the referral orders to be “cryptic and laconic” as they failed to even mention the gist of the allegations or show any application of mind. It cautioned that such orders could have grave consequences on an advocate’s professional standing and reputation. The Bench further observed, “Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of professional misconduct.”
It held that the mere act of identifying a party in consent terms or attesting an affidavit does not, in itself, constitute misconduct. The allegations were described as “wholly absurd,” “untenable,” and “founded on malicious insinuations.” The Court also underscored that the Bar Council acts as a “sentinel of the professional code of conduct” and must exercise its powers with due care and reasoned satisfaction.
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that the statutory requirement under Section 35 was not complied with, the Apex Court quashed Complaint No. 27 of 2023 and all subsequent proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. Costs of ₹50,000 each were imposed on the complainants and the Bar Council for pursuing frivolous complaints and subjecting the advocates to unwarranted harassment.
The Court further dismissed two connected special leave petitions, upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash similar disciplinary proceedings. The Court reiterated that referring complaints without a prima facie finding of misconduct is impermissible and violative of the procedural safeguards envisaged under the Advocates Act.
Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (Civil) No. 27606 of 2023
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. S.R Singh (Sr. Adv.), Arvind S. Avhad (AOR), Rajat Kaproor, Sushil Sonkar, Nitin Jain, Yash Tiwari, Praveen Kumar Jha
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Chander Uday Singh (Sr. Adv.), Rohan Thawani, Pooja Dhar (AOR), Aakriti Vikas, Prasenjit Keswani (Sr. Adv.), Upmanyu Tewari (AOR)
Picture Source :
