Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct - Referral to the Disciplinary Committee requires recording of reasons

Supreme Court Quashes Frivolous Complaint Against Advocate; Imposes Costs on Bar Council. Supreme Court criticizes Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for lack of due diligence, imposes Rs. 50,000 as costs for entertaining baseless complaint.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a disciplinary complaint filed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula, calling it frivolous and devoid of merit. The apex court also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on BCMG for entertaining the complaint without proper scrutiny.

The case revolved around allegations of professional misconduct against Narula, based on a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar, who claimed that certain consent terms were fraudulently obtained in a property dispute. The Bar Council had referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee without recording any reasons to believe that Narula had committed misconduct, a statutory requirement under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, highlighted the importance of the Bar Council applying its mind and recording reasons before referring a complaint for disciplinary proceedings. The court noted that the order passed by the Judge-Advocate was "cryptic and laconic" and did not meet statutory requirements, leading to the quashing of the complaint.

The judgment emphasized that there was no professional relationship between the complainant and Narula, as Narula had merely identified the plaintiff in consent terms that remain unchallenged. The court stated that prosecuting an advocate representing the opposite party without a jural relationship was impermissible.

Moreover, the court criticized the Bar Council's lack of due diligence and its role as the sentinel of professional conduct, stressing that frivolous complaints should not be entertained, as they could tarnish an advocate's reputation.

The decision also covered another case involving advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, where similar allegations were dismissed. The court found no merit in the complaints and imposed additional costs on the complainant and the BCMG.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of legal proceedings, ensuring that advocates are not subjected to baseless allegations, and maintaining the dignity of the legal profession.

Bottom Line:

Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct - Referral of complaint to the Disciplinary Committee requires recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct - Absence of such reasoning renders the reference order invalid.

Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961, Section 35

Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2783268