New Delhi: The Supreme Court has modified a one-year suspension imposed on an advocate by the Bar Council of India into a warning, while holding that an advocate's duty to behave decently inside court premises extends to opposing counsel and opposing parties as well, regardless of whether the advocate is engaged in that particular case.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing an appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, by advocate Sudhendu Prakash Gautam against an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India suspending him from practice for one year, pursuant to a complaint filed by S.L. Chaudhary. The suspension had been stayed by an interim order of the Court in 2012 and had never been given effect to.
The appellant was engaged as counsel for M/s Recon Copier System Private Limited in proceedings before a Labour Court at Karkardooma, Delhi, in which the respondent was the opposite party. The respondent alleged that after his application was dismissed by the Labour Court, the appellant caught him by the collar, beat and abused him, and threatened to kill him within the court premises, besides forcing him to withdraw a complaint he had filed. The respondent lodged police complaints in April and August 2005, followed by a complaint to the Bar Council of Delhi, which was eventually taken up by the Bar Council of India.
The complaint had first been dismissed in 2009 on the ground that since the appellant was not engaged by the respondent but appeared for the opposite side, no case of professional misconduct was made out. This order was recalled in 2011 on a review petition, and the matter was finally heard and decided against the appellant in July 2012, after an adjournment request was refused on the date of hearing.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel contended that he had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing, since his adjournment request was declined and the matter taken up the same day. The Court agreed that the appellant had not been heard properly, but declined to remit the matter back to the Bar Council of India, noting that nearly 21 years had elapsed since the complaint was first filed. It also noted that since the appellant had never been engaged as counsel for the respondent, there was no allegation of misconduct concerning the actual court proceedings the allegation was confined to the incident inside the court premises on the day the respondent's application was dismissed.
The Court observed that since the alleged assault and threats had already been reported to the police, the culpability for that incident was a matter for the police rather than the Bar Councils. However, it held that an advocate's conduct within court premises remains a distinct and important ground for disciplinary action, independent of the advocate's role in the underlying case:
"...behaviour of a lawyer in the Court premises is one such important factor which attracts the allegation of misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone."
Weighing the nature of the misconduct confined to indecent behaviour and unconnected to the conduct of the case itself against the considerable delay since the complaint was filed, the Court disposed of the appeal by modifying the Bar Council of India's order and issuing a warning to the appellant to always behave properly in court premises towards opposing counsel, his own client, and the opposing party, in place of the one-year suspension.
The pending applications, including one for substitution of service, were also disposed of.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR, Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Saransh Maheshwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Nidhi, AOR, Mr. Dhruv Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Om Kumar, Advocate, and Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR.
Case Title: Sudhendu Prakash Gautam vs. S.L. Chaudhary, Civil Appeal No(s). 7171/2012 (2026 INSC 791).
.webp)
