The Supreme Court dismissed a statutory appeal filed by an advocate challenging disciplinary action imposed by the Bar Council of India, upholding a three-year suspension from legal practice for professional misconduct. The Court took a stern view of the advocate’s conduct, observing that he had made “scandalous allegations” against the complainant and therefore did not deserve any leniency.
The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against an advocate by the Bar Council of India following a complaint alleging professional misconduct. After due inquiry, the Bar Council found the advocate guilty and suspended his licence to practise for three years. Challenging this decision, the advocate approached the Apex Court, seeking to overturn the order.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the appellant-advocate argued for leniency and requested the Court to reconsider the punishment imposed by the Bar Council. The respondent, however, contended that the appellant had engaged in egregious misconduct by making baseless and scandalous allegations, thereby lowering the dignity of the legal profession.
The Court, after hearing both sides, refused to interfere with the Bar Council’s decision. The Bench noted that the appellant’s conduct reflected an “obstinate character” and involved serious misconduct that warranted strict disciplinary action. The Court categorically stated that there was no justification for taking a lenient view in a matter where the integrity of the legal profession was compromised.
It observed that the nature of the allegations made by the advocate were not only unfounded but scandalous, thereby undermining the trust and dignity inherent in the legal profession.
Dismissing the appeal, the Top Court upheld the three-year suspension imposed on the advocate. It further directed the Collector of Agra to attach the appellant’s properties for recovery of ₹1 lakh, to be paid as compensation to the complainant within three months. The Court also ordered that the Bar Council shall not renew the advocate’s licence without its prior permission. Additionally, it directed that a compliance report be submitted to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court once the sentence is served.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Priyanka Bansal
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6679 of 2024
Coram: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Dr. I M Quddusi (Sr. Adv.), Jabar Singh, Kanti Tiwari, Jazib Siddiqui, Sameer Siddiqui, Vaibhav Sharma, V. Maheshwari & Co. (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Akshay Kumar, Mrgank Kumar, Apurva Singhal, Ajeet Yadav, Anil Kumar (AOR)
Picture Source :
