Court advises petitioner to seek revisional jurisdiction under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act, 1961, in lieu of an appeal.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India regarding the non-maintainability of an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, by Mr. C. Asok Kumar. The petitioner had challenged the Bar Council of Delhi's dismissal of his complaint against two advocates, which was based on alleged professional misconduct.
The case revolved around Mr. Kumar's grievances against Advocates Yashwant Singh Yadav and Anubhav, whom he engaged to file a Review Petition for his daughter. Despite paying a professional fee of Rs. 55,000 and providing necessary documents, the advocates allegedly failed to act diligently, leading to the lapse of the statutory limitation period for filing the Review Petition. Mr. Kumar's complaint to the Bar Council of Delhi was dismissed on the grounds that the fees and documents were returned, a decision he then appealed under Section 37.
However, the Bar Council of India, via a letter dated January 9, 2026, communicated to Mr. Kumar that the appeal was not maintainable and advised him to pursue revisional jurisdiction under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act, 1961. The court's judgment clarified that Section 37 allows a statutory right of appeal only against orders from the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council, while Section 48-A provides revisional jurisdiction for cases where no statutory appeal lies.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who presided over the case, emphasized that the Bar Council of Delhi's order was not issued by its Disciplinary Committee, making the appeal under Section 37 inappropriate. The judge further affirmed that Mr. Kumar's appropriate course of action was to file a revision petition under Section 48-A, as guided by the Bar Council of India.
The court's decision reinforces the statutory scheme differentiating between appellate and revisional jurisdictions under the Advocates Act, ensuring the appropriate legal recourse is pursued. Mr. Kumar retains the liberty to initiate a revision as per the court's guidance, with all parties' rights and contentions remaining open.
Bottom line:-
Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides a statutory right of appeal only against an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council under Section 35. In cases where no statutory appeal lies, Section 48-A vests revisional jurisdiction in the Bar Council of India.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, Section 48-A of the Advocates Act, 1961
Mr. C. Asok Kumar v. Bar Council of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2906521
