NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said a complaint filed against an advocate for the alleged professional misconduct cannot be referred to the disciplinary committee by the Bar Council without recording sufficient reasons for it.
The top court emphasised recording of reasons to believe that an advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry under Advocates Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the scheme of Section 35 of the Act exposits that where a complaint is received from the State Bar Council, it must record its reasons to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, and only thereafter can the matter be referred for disposal to the disciplinary committee.
On a plea by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the court found the complaint filed against respondent advocate Rajiv Narula for alleged professional misconduct was referred to the disciplinary committee by a cryptic order.
"Reference of a complaint of the disciplinary committee would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession. Hence a cryptic order without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order,'' the bench said.
The court dismissed the petition by BCMG against the stay on the proceedings. It went on to quash the complaint filed against Narula. Besides, the bench imposed Rs 50,000 cost on the BCMG for entertaining the frivolous complaint and for dragging Narula to this court.
The court said, as Narula was not representing the complainant or his predecessor, there was no justification to name him for alleged misconduct.
There existed no professional relationship between the respondent advocate and the complainant, it pointed out.
"His prosecution, as being the lawyer of the opposite party in the suit before the High Court, was highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for,'' the bench said.
The court emphasised, ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction.
In a connected matter, the court castigated the BCMG for entertaining a complaint against advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, for merely identifying the deponent in an affidavit.
The court said the High Court was perfectly justified in its findings that the allegations set out in the complaint were wholly absurd and untenable.
"An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit,'' the bench said, imposing cost of Rs 50,000 each on BCMG and the complainant, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad to be paid to the respondent advocate.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
