Karnataka High Court Quashes Professional Misconduct Complaint Against Advocate

Court rules that complaint lacked "reason to believe" and complainant's locus standi was insufficient under the Advocates Act

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed a complaint of professional misconduct filed against senior advocate Ms. Jayna Kothari. The court found that the complaint, lodged by Mr. Manish Kumar, lacked both the necessary "reason to believe" and appropriate locus standi, as mandated by Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The case originated when Mr. Kumar filed a complaint with the Karnataka State Bar Council, alleging misconduct by Ms. Kothari in her role as an external member of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. The ICC had found Mr. Kumar guilty of sexual harassment, leading to his termination. Mr. Kumar contended that Ms. Kothari exhibited bias and had a conflict of interest, as her brother, also an advocate, was involved with the company.

Justice Nagaprasanna's judgment emphasized that Ms. Kothari's participation in the ICC was in a personal capacity and not as an advocate, thus not constituting professional misconduct under the Advocates Act. The court highlighted that there was no client-advocate relationship between Mr. Kumar and Ms. Kothari, rendering the complaint unsustainable.

Citing several precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the court reaffirmed the principle that a complaint of professional misconduct requires a direct legal grievance or a client-advocate relationship. The court noted that the Bar Council must have a "reason to believe" in the allegations of misconduct, which was absent in this case.

The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings and the necessity for complaints to be grounded in substantive legal relationships and evidence. It also serves as a reminder of the high standards expected of legal professionals and the procedural safeguards in place to protect them from unfounded allegations.

Bottom Line:

Professional misconduct under Advocates Act - A complaint before the Bar Council must show "reason to believe" and locus standi of the complainant - Allegations against an advocate acting in a non-professional capacity cannot be considered professional misconduct.

Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961 Section 35; Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Ms. Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2815872