Sanjana Tutorial1&2 Sept2021

TUTORIAL I & TUTORIAL II
CASE ANALYSIS ON THE STATE BAR COUNCILS AND BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA’S OPINION
ON DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Submitted by
Sanjana L. B.
PRN – 17010323106
Batch 2017-22 BA LLB
Div. B
Course: Professional Ethics
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Symbiosis International University, PUNE
In
September, 2021
Under the guidance of
Dr. Sanu Rani Paul
Assistant Professor
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Table of Contents
Contents
1. Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Association, Pathankot, (2001) 1 SCC 470...........1
1.1. Facts of the case...........................................................................................................1
1.2. Issues...........................................................................................................................1
1.3. Analysis.......................................................................................................................1
1.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court.........................................................................2
2. Rajendra V. Pai v. Alex Fernandes, (2002) 4 SCC 212.................................................2
2.1. Facts of the case...........................................................................................................2
2.2. Issues...........................................................................................................................3
2.3. Analysis.......................................................................................................................3
3. Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakarma (2012) 1 SCC 741...................4
3.1. Facts of the case...........................................................................................................4
3.2. Issues...........................................................................................................................4
3.3. Analysis.......................................................................................................................4
4. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. Karupati Satyanarayana, AIR 2003 SC 175.......5
4.1. Facts of the case...........................................................................................................5
4.2. Issues...........................................................................................................................6
4.3. Analysis.......................................................................................................................6
5. Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran v. Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhury, (2011) 14 SCC 105.....7
5.1. Facts of the case...........................................................................................................7
5.2. Issues...........................................................................................................................7
5.3. Analysis.......................................................................................................................8
6. Narain Pandey v. Pannalal Pandey, (2013) 11 SCC 435...............................................8
6.1. Facts of the case...........................................................................................................8
6.2. Issues...........................................................................................................................9
6.3. Analysis.......................................................................................................................9
6.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court.......................................................................10
7. Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC
110 ..........................................................................................................................................10
7.1. Facts of the case.........................................................................................................10
7.2. Issues.........................................................................................................................11
7.3. Analysis.....................................................................................................................11
II
8. Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v. Balwant Singh Thakur, AIR 2018 SC 199...................12
8.1. Facts of the case.........................................................................................................12
8.2. Issues.........................................................................................................................12
8.3. Analysis.....................................................................................................................12
9. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45............................................13
9.1. Facts of the case.........................................................................................................13
9.2. Issues.........................................................................................................................14
9.3. Analysis.....................................................................................................................14
9.4. Conclusion and decision of the case..........................................................................15
10. An Advocate v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1989 SC 245.........................................15
10.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................15
10.2. Issues......................................................................................................................15
10.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................16
10.4. Conclusion and decision of the case......................................................................16
11. D. S. Dalal v. State Bank of India and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1608.............................17
11.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................17
11.2. Issues......................................................................................................................17
11.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................17
11.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court....................................................................18
12. Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291....................18
12.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................18
12.2. Issues......................................................................................................................19
12.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................19
13. V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors., (1979) 1 SCC 308.................................20
13.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................20
13.2. Issues......................................................................................................................20
13.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................20
14. Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1012.
.......................................................................................................................................21
14.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................21
14.2. Issues......................................................................................................................21
14.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................22
III
15. V.P. Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 266.
.......................................................................................................................................22
15.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................22
15.2. Issues......................................................................................................................23
15.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................23
16. Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli, (2004) 5 SCC 689.......................................24
16.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................24
16.2. Issues......................................................................................................................24
16.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................25
17. John D’Souza v. Edward Ani, AIR 1994 SC 975.....................................................25
17.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................25
17.2. Issues......................................................................................................................26
17.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................26
18. Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, AIR 2001 SC 2509.....................27
18.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................27
18.2. Issues......................................................................................................................27
18.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................27
19. R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 2912...................................28
19.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................28
19.2. Issues......................................................................................................................29
19.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................29
20. P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti, (1997) 7 SCC 147...........................................................30
20.1. Facts of the case.....................................................................................................30
20.2. Issues......................................................................................................................30
20.3. Analysis.................................................................................................................30
IV
1. Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Association, Pathankot, (2001) 1 SCC 470
1.1. Facts of the case
This was a case regarding disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, an
advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. Mr. Sharma was engaged in
an alternate business of photocopying and documentation in the court compound, and acting
as the proprietor of a Coal Briquettes business. The Bar Association of Pathankot made a
complaint to the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which constituted a Disciplinary
Committee.
The Disciplinary Committee ruled that Mr. Sharma’s name should be removed from the State
Bar Council’s rolls. Mr. Sharma appealed the order before the Bar Council of India, which
upheld the State Bar Council’s order. Mr. Sharma preferred an appeal before the Supreme
Court of India under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
1.2. Issues
The Supreme Court had to consider two questions. Firstly, whether Mr. Sharma had
committed professional misconduct. Secondly, whether the punishment for such misconduct
has to be proportional to the nature of misconduct involved, and the circumstances of the
person who had committed it.
1.3. Analysis
The Court upheld that Bar Council of India’s view, that the rules of the Bar Council of India
clearly specified that no advocate can be a full time salaried employed person or a person
carrying on any other business. He should not be personally engaged in any business but as
per the rules. In the BCI’s view, the nature of such business is inconsistent with the dignity or
nobility of profession.
The Court stated that Mr. Sharma had not only engaged in three concurrent businesses in
violation of his conditions for enrolment with the State Bar Council, but had also submitted a
false affidavit regarding such engagements to the State Bar Council. This amounted to the
suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court focused on the nobility of the legal
profession, and stated that engaging in alternative businesses while being enrolled as an
1
advocate disrespected and struck at the very sanctity of such nobility. Further, suppressing
material facts and submitting false affidavits was also held as a ground to disbar someone
from continuing their enrolment with the State Bar Council.
While considering the degree of punishment to be imposed, the Court held that the
circumstances of the person under scrutiny for disciplinary action should be considered. In
the instant case, as the circumstances involved a person who was suffering from partial
disability, the Court stated that the disbarment should be for a period of five years, and not
permanent.
1.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court
The Court upheld the views of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. It held that
Mr. Sharma’s engagement in alternate businesses while being enrolled as an advocate is a
form of professional misconduct, and invited disciplinary proceedings. The Court stated that
the disbarment for such misconduct should be for a period of five years.
2. Rajendra V. Pai v. Alex Fernandes, (2002) 4 SCC 212
Certain village lands were undergoing proceedings for acquisition by the Government. The
Appellant, an advocate, was also from one of the villages undergoing large scale acquisition.
Totally, there were over one hundred and fifty persons whole lands were subject to these
proceedings. As Appellant was also belonging to one of these villages, he possessed a
personal interest in defending these lands from being acquired. The villagers, on the other
hand, also put their faith in the Appellant-advocate to demand a fair compensation for their
lands being acquired.
However, after some time, three out of the one hundred and fifty persons filed a complaint
against the Appellant for professional misconduct. They stated that as an advocate, he
solicited more work from the villagers and demanded a contingent fee which depended on the
compensation that the villagers would finally receive at the conclusion of the acquisition
proceedings. They further said that the advocate attempted to identify certain persons to open
a bank account, in which he wanted the cheque for the compensation to be deposited. Further,
it was alleged that the Appellant withdrew this amount by falsely identifying himself.
2
Given these facts, the Appellant was held guilty for professional misconduct and violation by
the Bar Councils of Maharashtra and Goa, as per Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Subsequently, the decision was appealed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Council of India, which stated upheld this decision. The result was that the Appellant’s name
was to be removed from the state rolls. The Appellant-advocate approached the Supreme
Court after being aggrieved by this decision.
2.2. Issues
There were two relevant issues. Firstly, whether the decision of the State Bar Council and the
Bar Council of India were valid in the case. Secondly, whether the order to remove the
advocate’s name from the rolls was proportional to the degree of contravention?
2.3. Analysis
In this case, the central consideration was that the Appellant-advocate had a personal interest
in the litigation he was involved in, and his family property was also at stake. The State Bar
Council and the Bar Council of India considered these acts to be that of professional
misconduct, and also amounted to solicitation of work. The Court also specifically relied on
the past decisions of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India related to these
matters.
Further, in addition to the fact that solicitation and personal interest amounted to professional
misconduct, the Court also stated that an advocate’s past conduct is also relevant in
understanding the punishment for his misconduct. Contrary to the opinion of the State Bar
Council and the Bar Council of India, the Court stated that debarment should not be
permanent. The Court stated that debarring an advocate’s entire career is extreme, and
punishment should be proportional; specifically, the court stated that, “the punishment given
to the appellant in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case is so disproportionate as
to prick the conscience of the Court.”
Further, the Court also disagreed with the opinion and approach of the State Bar Council and
the Bar Council of India that punishment is penalty; rather, the Court held that the
punishment in disciplinary proceedings is meant to deter future misconduct from the accused
and other advocates.
3
The Court held that the acts by the Appellant-advocate amounted to professional misconduct.
However, the punishment was modified and reduced to seven years.
3. Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakarma (2012) 1 SCC 741
The Respondent in this case was a client of the Advocate (who is the Appellant in this case).
The Respondent approached the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh alleging that the Appellant
had committed professional misconduct. A Sale Deed had been attested by the Advocate, in
which he stated that “in the Western side of the saleable property, one shop adjacent in
occupation of the Respondent-complainant had been transferred by the vendor to the
Appellant-advocate by giving him the ownership right.” However, the said vendor’s father
had already entered into another deed to make a sale of the property to the Respondent in
exchange for INR 2,00,000/- as consideration.
A suit for specific performance had also been filed for enforcing the above second sale deed.
The Appellant was aware of this. Knowing this, the Appellant had filed suit against the
Respondent on behalf of the vendor’s father, asking for the shop to be vacated as the
Respondent was actually the tenant of the vendor’s father.
The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh levied punishment
on professional misconduct. However, the State Bar Council appealed the decision before the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, which ordered the suspension of the
advocate for a period of one year. A cross-appeal filed by the Appellant-advocate before the
Bar Council of India was dismissed.
3.2. Issues
The Supreme Court of India considered three issues in this case. Firstly, if the Appellant-
advocate had actually purchased the property in question. Secondly, whether the Appellant-
advocate had filed a suit to evict the Respondent-complainant deliberately, in the name of
another person. Thirdly, whether the actions of the Appellant-advocate amount to
professional misconduct.
4
3.3. Analysis
In this case, the Appellant-advocate had attested an affidavit which contained facts that were
false to his knowledge. The State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India had declared this
action to be that of professional misconduct covered under Section 35 of the Advocates Act,
1961. The Supreme Court also adhered to this view. The Court relied on the case of V. C.
Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors., where the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India had discussed bad faith on behalf of advocates who act against their own clients by
withholding money, make false representations and deceive them.
Further, the Supreme Court stated that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will
not apply to the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India,
as it is not made applicable through the Advocates Act, 1961. The court further stated that
that it is essential that no compromise be made with the nobility of law which affects the faith
of the public in the rule of law. The Court echoed the Bar Council’s opinion that
“unprofessional conduct by an advocate has to be viewed seriously in light of the twin
objectives of punishment for professional misconduct which are deterrence and correction.”
The Court went on to state that in line with the opinion of the State Bar Council, the charge of
misconduct is both grave as serious as it involved an act which was not only undesirable but
highly unethical. The Appellant Advocate’s specific connivance with the vendor herein was
in utter disregard of his position as an advocate at the Court, ignoring or disregarding
professional ethics or morality. However, the Court noted that punishment or penalty was to
be levied in accordance with the degree of misconduct.
The Supreme Court held that the Appellant-Advocate was to be suspended from his practice
for three years for professional misconduct. The Court held that to both deter and correct the
fraudulent activity, the punishment was to ensure reinstatement of faith and respect of the
people towards the legal profession.
4. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. Karupati Satyanarayana, AIR 2003 SC 175
5
In an original suit, Mr. K. Satyanarayana, represented the plaintiff. The suit was decreed in
favour of the plaintiff. An Execution Petition was instituted for realization of the decretal
amount. The Respondent had received a sum total of Rs. 14,600 on various dates in the
execution proceedings, but did not make the payment of the same to the complainant. The
complainant informed the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, and the Disciplinary Committee
had ruled that the retention of amounts by the Respondent was a disciplinary violation, and
directed that his name be removed from the rolls of the State Bar Council.
This ruling was appealed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. The
Bar Council of India was in agreement with the factual finding of the State Disciplinary
Committee that the amounts had not been paid to the complainant. However, the Bar Council
came to the conclusion that the Respondent had not committed any professional misconduct
though there might have been some negligence on his part which did not involve any moral
turpitude. The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI set aside the order of the State Council and
held that the delinquent is not guilty of professional misconduct and disciplinary violation.
The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh appealed the matter before the Supreme Court.
4.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the actions by the Respondent was
actually a disciplinary violation, and whether it amounted a form of professional misconduct.
4.3. Analysis
The Court systematically analysed the facts of the case, and observed that the Respondent
was an advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council, his client was the decree holder, and as
the decree holder, he was entitled to receive sums of money. The advocate had received these
sums, and was aware that they were to be given to his client; however, he repeatedly cited
financial difficulties, etc. to continue withholding this money. While the Bar Council of India
had opined that this was merely negligence, and not misconduct, the Supreme Court
disagreed and opined that withholding such sums of money was grave misconduct. The Court
stated that the BCI overlooked the act of professional misconduct by equating it as an act of
negligence. The Bench held that the finding of the BCI that there was no intention on the part
of the advocate to misappropriate the money of his client was not only “unfounded and
perverse” but also lacked the serious thought.
6
The Court, in arriving at its position, observed holdings in other judgments, such as Bar
Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dhabolkar (1975) 2 SCC 702, and Harish Chandra Tiwari
v. Baiju (2002) 1 SCR 83, where the Court had discussed adherence to a strict professional
code by advocates. The Court was in full disagreement with the Bar Council of India’s
decision in the present case, stating that misappropriating a client’s funds is grave
misconduct, and strikes at the very sanctity of a noble profession, regardless of how long the
misappropriation lasted for.
The Court held that the failure in the payment of the decretal amount to the complainant by
the delinquent is a gross act of professional misconduct. The Court held that given the serious
and grave nature of misconduct, it was appropriate that the advocate’s name had been ordered
for removal from the rolls. Therefore, the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh’s appeal was
allowed in the case.
5. Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran v. Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhury, (2011) 14 SCC 105
The Appellant had hired Respondent No. 1 on a retainer basis to represent it in various court
cases in Jaipur, Rajasthan. In 1990, the Respondent represented the Jaipur Development
Authority and presented their defence in certain cases concerning the Rajasthan Land
Acquisition Act. The Respondent had failed to appear before the Court or furnish a written
statement on behalf of the Appellant in the matter, after which the Appellants belated request
to file a written statement was denied by the Court. Further, the Respondent failed to examine
and cross examine witnesses in the case. Eventually, when the case was decreed against the
Appellant for INR 1.25crores, the Respondent failed to inform the Appellant regarding the
same. The Respondent also had a personal interest in the lands subject to the acquisition
proceedings.
The Appellant complained to the State Bar Council of Rajasthan, but the State Disciplinary
Committee was unable to complete proceedings within one year. Due to this, the case was
transferred to the Bar Council of India. The decision of the Bar Council of India dismissing
the complaint was appealed before the Supreme Court.
7
5.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered three issues in the case. Firstly, whether the Respondent had
committed professional misconduct. Secondly, whether the Respondents had a conflicting
interest, and lastly, whether sharing the chambers of an advocate engaging in professional
misconduct and appearing against them in the same proceedings would make the other
advocates guilty of professional misconduct.
5.3. Analysis
The Court observed that the Respondent’s actions amounted to misconduct, as his personal
conflicting interest was not brought to light before taking up the land acquisition case and
conducted the case against the client who appointed and retained him for the case. This not
only brought a conflict of interest but also sabotaged the client’s best interests, which
according to the Court, was a violation of the strict code of conduct to be followed by
advocates. The Court relied on the decision of Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Gurdial Singh,
where it was observed that the charge of professional misconduct is a quasi-criminal charge,
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the Supreme Court reiterated that advocates holding conflicting interest in matters
must not represent clients in the same matter, and doing so amounts to wilful neglect of their
duty. Furthermore, not informing one’s client regarding such conflict of interest in order to
obtain an unfavourable order was considered grave misconduct. In discussing these aspects,
the Court disagreed with the Bar Council of India’s dismissal of the complaint, as the
Respondent’s conduct violated his fiduciary relationship with the client. This conclusion was
also arrived at based on the order made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India and the facts of the case.
On the other hand, the case of Respondents No. 2 & 3 was found to not amount to
professional misconduct as they were representing the clients in cases where they directly did
not have any interest and only represented them in their capacity as advocates.
The Bar Council of India’s order finding Respondents 2 and 3 (the advocates merely sharing
chambers with the Respondent 1) not guilty was upheld, but the order finding Respondent
8
No. 1 not guilty was changed, and Respondent No. 1 was suspended from practice for six
months.
6. Narain Pandey v. Pannalal Pandey, (2013) 11 SCC 435
The Respondent in this case was an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The Appellant (who was the initial complainant) had approached the State Bar Council with
an allegation that the Respondent had partaken in certain false cases through forgery and
fabrication of documents. Among these were also settlement documents which were in fact
outside the knowledge of the actual parties involved. In the Appellant’s specific case, he
informed the State Bar Council that the Respondent had forged and fabricated documents to
procure some orders from the Consolidation Court, fully outside the knowledge of the parties
involved.
The State Disciplinary Committee considered the evidence on record, and heard the witnesses
produced before it. The material revealed that the Respondent had filed several compromises
before the Consolidation Court which were never authorised or signed by the witnesses (who
were his clients). The witnesses had also never engaged the Respondent as their advocate.
The Respondent also did not refute or cross-examine the evidence at this stage of the
proceedings. The State Bar Council found that the Respondent was guilty of the alleged
conduct, and disbarred him from practicing for a period of seven years. This order was
appealed before the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India reversed this decision.
The Bar Council of India’s decision was appealed before the Supreme Court.
6.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered two issues. Firstly, whether the Respondent was guilty of
professional misconduct owing to his conduct. Secondly, if he was guilty, what punishment
had to be imposed.
6.3. Analysis
The Court relied on the rulings of the Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh
to rule that, “an advocate found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and
then filing fictitious compromises without any authority amounts to serious misconduct
9
involving disciplinary action and punishment.” The Bar Council of India had disagreed with
the State Bar Council’s views on certain factual matters regarding fabricated signatures. It,
therefore, had modified the punishment imposed by the State Bar Council, and imposed a fine
on the Respondent.
However, the Supreme Court reiterated that the legal profession was monopolistic in
character, and therefore, members were expected to uphold their conduct to the highest
standards. Any punishment, therefore, had to be proportional to the degree of misconduct.
The Court relied on earlier decisions of its own, and other courts, to arrive at this finding.
Given this, the Court modified the punishment for the Respondent. The Court disagreed with
the lenient (and sympathy) shown by the Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee in
the matter.
The Court also emphasised that an advocate must “fearlessly uphold the interests of his
client” in accordance with the Bar Council of India Rules, 1961. It stated that fraudulent
conduct cannot be dealt with lenience, and the purity and nobility of the profession had to be
upheld.
The Supreme Court held that the Respondent was to be suspended from practice for a period
of three years on the ground of committing professional misconduct by filing vakalatnamas
without any authority and later on filing fictitious compromises.
7. Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC

110
A complaint was made against two advocates by a group of 12 lawyers. The two advocates,
Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar and A.N. Agavane registered with the Bar Council of
Maharashtra were accused of professional misconduct. They were alleged to have arranged
for the re-marriage of a couple despite the fact that the couple had not entered into a valid
divorce. They had also solicited a fee of Rs. 100 in exchange for an affidavit sworn by them
before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pune, stating that they had divorced their past marital
10
relations, and had only after that gotten married under the Hindu rites and rituals. They were
informed this was adequate to prove their marriage as well as earlier divorce.
Secondly, the lawyers were alleged to have drafted an affidavit on behalf of their elderly
client stating that she had gifted her lands to her granddaughter. While the client was
informed by other lawyers that stamp duty and registration charges were to be paid on the
market value of the land, these advocates had discouraged “spending an excessive amount on
stamp duty and registration charges”. In both instances, the advocates had given improper
legal advice. The proceedings were transferred to the Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of
India, which ruled that this amounted to professional misconduct. The Committee suspended
both advocates from practice for aa period of two months. An appeal was preferred before the
Supreme Court.
7.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered three issues. Firstly, whether the advocates had committed
professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Secondly, whether the order of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding them guilty and imposing
suspension was justified. Thirdly, whether there was a difference between wrong advice and
improper legal advice, and in which cases can an advocate be guilty of professional
misconduct,
7.3. Analysis
The Supreme Court drew a distinction between the improper legal advice and wrong legal
advice. The Court stated that where there was negligence, but no moral delinquency, it could
not amount to professional misconduct. However, negligent conduct accompanied by moral
turpitude to jeopardise the client’s interest would make an advocate guilty of professional
misconduct. In the instant case, the Bar Council of India had opined that the conduct of
preparing false affidavit for the client amounted to professional misconduct. The Bar Council
had not considered the role of the clients itself in the swearing of an affidavit. The Supreme
Court discussed that the lawyers had drafted the affidavit based on the instructions of the
client, who were themselves ready to swear by it. The Court stated that while the evidence
showed suspicion over the conduct of the advocates, the Bar Council had erred in terming it
as professional misconduct.
11
The Bar Council of India had also opined on the nature of work that the complainants
themselves were carrying on. The complainants used to procure work by appointing agents,
which according to the Bar Council of India, amounted to professional misconduct. Separate
proceedings were initiated against them. The Supreme Court urged the Bar Council of India
and the Bar Council of Maharashtra to organise and train members of the Bar working in
these environments. Further, the Court stated that no activity should be performed by any
member of the legal profession that could undermine the public’s confidence in the
profession’s “fidelity, fairness, and dignity” in any way.
The court held that the evidence in the case which the Disciplinary Committee relied on was
absolutely adequate. Although the finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the Appellant
was guilty of providing incorrect advice, there still persisted a doubt of whether this would
amount to professional misconduct. Given this, the Court said that it could not decide with
“strict accuracy” that there was moral turpitude or delinquency. Thus, the Disciplinary
Committee, Bar Council of India’s decision was set aside by the Supreme Court.
8. Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v. Balwant Singh Thakur, AIR 2018 SC 199
The Respondent (the Complainant in the case) was a client of the Advocate (the Appellant) in
a civil suit involving his ancestral property. Once he was allotted his ancestral property, he
sought to sell it, but the Advocate filed an objection before the Deputy Registrar. The ground
of objection was that the property was not in full ownership of the Complainant, and had a
market value lesser than that shown in the Complainant’s Sale Deed.
The Complainant approached the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh against the Advocate against
the actions of the advocate. The Complainant pleaded before the State Bar Council to take
disciplinary action. The Disciplinary Committee held that the Advocate was guilty of
professional misconduct, and suspended his license for a period of two years. An appeal was
preferred before the Bar Council of India, which affirmed that the Advocate was guilty of
professional misconduct. However, the Bar Council of India reduced the period of suspension
to one year, and imposed a cost of INR 25,000/-. The Advocate preferred an appeal before
the Supreme Court of India.
12
8.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the advocate had committed professional
misconduct as alleged by the Complainant.
8.3. Analysis
As per Rule 22 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1961, an advocate is not allowed to
purchase or bid for any property to which the advocate was associated professionally. In the
instant case, violation of this prohibition was in consideration. The Supreme Court stated that
the acts contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rules, the prohibition is only to the extent of the
action’s clash to the advocate’s professional capacity. This means that if an advocate were to
purchase a property in their personal capacity, or if the property is unconnected to their case,
the prohibition would not apply.
The Supreme Court in this case did not rely on any earlier decisions passed by the Bar
Council of India regarding professional misconduct by advocates. Instead, the Court relied on
its own interpretation of the Rules. In doing so, it disagreed with the Bar Council of India’s
opinion that the advocate had committed professional misconduct. The said property was not
being sold in execution of any decree, in which proceedings the appellant was engaged.
Hence, it was held that an Advocate’s capacity while committing an act alleged to be
professional misconduct also needs to be examined.
Furthermore, the Court also commented on the role of the State Bar Council in initiating
disciplinary proceedings against an advocate in such cases. It noted that the State Bar Council
should have considered that the advocate was no longer acting in professional capacity with
respect to the property after the case had been decided and property had been given to the
Complainant. Stating this, the Court stated that the State Bar Council erred in assuming
jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for ‘professional’ misconduct.
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Bar Council of India. The Court stated that
the advocate had not committed professional misconduct.
9. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45
13
There was a National Conference of members of the Bar Council of India and State Bar
Councils, during which a working paper was circulated on behalf of the Bar Council of India.
The working paper dealt with the question on strike by lawyers. The paper acknowledged that
in several instances in the past, Bar Associations have initiated strikes either at the state level
or at the national level. The working paper also noted that during a strike, it is the lawyers
themselves who end up being disadvantaged as they lose out on work; it went on to state that
even if lawyers have a right to strike or boycott courts, certain limited conditions must be
placed on when the members of the profession should restore their positions and the steps
that need to be taken.
This case was involved petitions which questioned whether lawyers have a right to strike.
While the U.P. Bar Council represented that lawyers have such a right, it also opined that the
Bar Council of India and the States have a right to discipline the procedure. The matter was
brought before the Supreme Court for a decision.
9.2. Issues
The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether an advocate can go an a strike.
9.3. Analysis
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decisions on similar issues, including Ramon Services
Private Limited v. Subhash Kapoor and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 118, and Mahabir Prasad Singh
v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37. The Court observed that a lawyer who calls for a
strike or goes on a strike is exhibiting improper behaviour, and is negligent towards the
interests of his or her client. Further, the Court noted that by disrupting smooth functioning of
courts, such lawyers also play a role in the obstruction of administering justice.
Further, the Court observed that only the U.P. Bar Council had contended that a right to strike
existed, and that striking will not be an action inviting disciplinary action. Moreover, the Bar
Council of India in this case had also submitted that there are various reasons why lawyers
are absent from work, including issues involving dignity, integrity and independence of the
bar and the judiciary, legislation without consulting Bar Councils, and issues related to
different sections of the Bar. The Court rejected the opinion of the U.P. Bar Council, and
14
stated that no Bar Council (State or National) could call for a strike or boycott of the courts
by scandalising court operation. The Bar Council of India had also in earlier cases before
High Courts opined that it is against resorting to a strike except in the rarest of rare
circumstances involving the dignity and independence of the judiciary and the Bar. It had
also opined that even if a rare case occurs, strikes must be peaceful and short to avoid
hardship to the public.
Given the stance of the Bar Council of India and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, it
was held that if such action is committed, disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the
relevant Bar Council.
9.4. Conclusion and decision of the case
The Supreme Court held that lawyers do not have a right to strike or call for a boycott of
courts. Further, it was held that no Bar Association or Bar Council may permit meetings
intended to call for such strikes or boycotts. The petitions were disposed in accordance with
this.
10. An Advocate v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1989 SC 245
An advocate was representing his client in a suit for the recovery of INR 30,098/-. At the
relevant time, a junior colleague had been entrusted with the brief of this case. However,
according to the client (the Complainant), at a later point in time, the suit was allegedly
withdrawn without the instructions, stating that the dispute was settled outside the court.
During such withdrawal, the junior colleague had been practising independently of his senior.
The Complainant approached the State Bar Council. The Disciplinary Committee of the State
Bar Council began looking into the complaint, however, the stipulated time for the
Committee to make its ruling lapsed. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Bar Council
of India. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India found the junior colleague
guilty of professional misconduct based on the complaint filed by the Complainant, and
suspended his practice for three years. However, the Committee had not framed issues or
charges before proceeding to record evidence in the case. The decision of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India was appealed before the Supreme Court of India.
15
10.2. Issues
The Supreme Court of India considered the following five issues:
“Firstly, whether a charge apprising him specifically of the precise nature and character of
the professional misconduct ascribed to him needs to be framed?
Secondly, whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a

finding of guilt and a punishment of this nature can be inflicted on him?
Thirdly, whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt?
Fourthly, whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?
Fifthly, Whether an advocate acting bona fide and in good faith on the basis of oral
instructions given by someone purporting to act on behalf of his client, would be guilty of
professional misconduct or of an unwise or imprudent act, or negligence simpliciter, or
culpable negligence punishable as professional misconduct?” [quoted from the judgment of
the Court]
10.3. Analysis
The Court in this case laid down certain guidelines to ascertain whether misconduct had
occurred, especially in cases like this one, where the advocate accused had withdrawn the suit
in good faith, believing that his client had instructed him to do so. The Court relied on its
earlier decisions concerning negligence by advocates, to discuss whether negligence in all
cases amounts to a form of misconduct.
The Court stated that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of a Bar Council are
quasi-criminal in nature as it may result in penal consequences (such as suspension and fine)
and must be treated accordingly. Given this, the Court went on, the “doctrine of the benefit of
doubt” would apply to such a proceeding, and will guide the opinion formed by the
Disciplinary Committee. In all such cases, the Court held, it must be examined whether
“negligence simpliciter would constitute misconduct”.
The Court disagreed with the approach of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India,
which had proceeded without framing charges. The Disciplinary Committees had opined
16
against establishing facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and the applicability of the doctrine of
benefit of doubt. They had also not considered important the question on the quantum of
punishment vis-à-vis the nature of the misconduct alleged. The Supreme Court denounced
these approaches in its judgment.
10.4. Conclusion and decision of the case
The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Bar Council of India and appropriate
decision based on the facts and evidence of the case. The earlier order of the Bar Council of
India was set aside.
11. D. S. Dalal v. State Bank of India and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1608
The State Bank of India filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against an advocate
(the Appellant), alleging that he and his colleagues had committed professional misconduct.
The Appellant and his colleagues were operating under the name of Singh and Company, a
firm of advocates and solicitors in Delhi. The bank had engaged the firm in order to file a
recover suit before the High Court for a large sum. Accordingly, the bank also entrusted the
law firm with original documents pertaining to their matter.
The bank received an update from the firm regarding their case once, after which they were
completely uninformed. They later hired another advocate to understand the status of the
case. It turned out that the case had first been filed late, after which the suit was returned by
the bench to the firm for the removal of objections. Subsequently, bench returned the entire
file to the firm for the removal of objections. However, the suit was not re-filed. Despite
these circumstances, the firm had billed the firm on several occasions, including for
professional fees. The bank alleged before the State Bar Council that the firm had
misappropriated sums of money.
The State Bar Council’s time to hear the case lapsed, and the case was transferred to the Bar
Council of India. The firm and the accused advocates once again did not appear and the
matter was decided against them ex parte, and their names were removed from the rolls of the
Bar.
11.2. Issues
17
The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the order passed by the Bar Council
of India deserved to be interfered with.
11.3. Analysis
The Court largely relied on the evidence presented before the Disciplinary Committee and the
facts of the case. It did not place reliance on earlier decisions, and instead focused its analysis
on the case at hand. The case involved clear moral turpitude on behalf of the advocates who
had even failed to appear in their own proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee before
appealing to the Supreme Court. The actions of keeping a client in complete mystery
regarding his own case was considered to be a clear case of professional misconduct.
Based on similar grounds, the Bar Council of India had also found the appellants guilty of
misconduct. The Bar Council of India had stated that, “the respondents (the firm of solicitors
and advocates) have throughout adopted the tactics of non-cooperation purposely with a
view to protract the proceedings unnecessarily.” Stating this, the Bar Council of India had
directed that the names of the advocates be removed from the rolls of the Bar. The Court
squarely affirmed this finding of the Bar Council of India, and stated that there was no
ground to interfere with this order.
The Court dismissed the appeal of the advocates. It found no reason to interfere with the
findings and conclusion arrived at by the Bar Council of India based on the facts of the case
and the evidence adduced before it.
12. Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291
The High Court of Bombay had filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra
concerning the behaviour of advocates in the court premises. The conduct complained of
involved solicitation of work. The accused advocates used to assemble themselves at the
premises and entrance of the criminal courts, where they used to try and solicit work. Many
times, these advocates would snatch briefs, enter into verbal and physical altercations, and
create a ruckus within the premises. There was also a continuous war on the undercutting of
fees between the lawyers, to try and snatch work from one another.
18
The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council had held that the sixteen advocates
accused of such activities were in fact guilty of professional misconduct. They were
suspended from practice for a period of three years. However, on appeal, the Bar Council of
India reversed this decision, but had only considered the case of eight advocates on merits.
The case was then appealed before the Supreme Court of India.
12.2. Issues
The Court considered three issues. Firstly, whether the requirement of “reason to believe”
was met by the Bar Council before the Disciplinary Committee was assigned the case.
Secondly, whether the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had rightly applied
the law in its decision. Thirdly, whether the Respondent-advocates had committed
12.3. Analysis
The Bar Council of India, in its appellate decision, had relied on Rule 36 of the Bar Council
of India Rules, which states the requirements to be fulfilled to establish professional
misconduct. As per this Rule, the advocate must have solicited work from a particular person
with respect to a case. The Bar Council of India opined that unless these factors were
satisfied i.e., solicitation, from a person, regarding a case, professional misconduct could not
be established. Applying this principle, the Bar Council of India had reversed the decision of
the State Bar Council in holding the advocates guilty of professional misconduct.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Bar Council of India’s opinion. Instead, it
stated that altercations and assembling at the entrance of court premises to solicit work was
disgraceful and dishonourable. Each of the eight cases was heard individually. It is unclear
whether the other eight cases (out of totally sixteen) were never appealed. The Court relied on
its earlier decisions in In re: Shri M. Advocate of Supreme Court of India 1956 SCR 811 and
In the matter of P, an Advocate (1964) 1 SCR 697, where it had considered similar issues.
The Court stated that while the “central function” of the legal profession was to facilitate the
administration of justice, it was imperative that the ethos, dignity and confidence of the
profession be maintained by advocates. Given this, the Court stated that the Bar Council of
India had applied Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules incorrectly.
19
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bar Council of India. It decided individually on
the case of each of the eight advocates based on their facts, and consequently, if they were
guilty, the Court decided the quantum of punishment according to the nature of their
misconduct and their circumstances.
13. V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors., (1979) 1 SCC 308
The Appellant, Mr. Rangadurai was an advocate by profession who was engaged by his client
for filing two suits on the basis of promissory notes. The client also paid the Appellant legal
fees for the same. The Appellant also informed the client that the suits had been filed before
the appropriate court, gave them false dates, and even informed the client falsely that a decree
for recovery had been passed in favour of the client. Going by these false representations, the
client reached out to the debtor through a notice to receive payment of the sums. Later on, the
client learnt that all the information conveyed by the Appellant was on the bases of
misrepresentation.
The client filed a complaint before the State Bar Council, where the Appellant denied receipt
of any promissory notes in the first place. He further said that he had assigned the case to a
junior advocate (preferred by the complainants) to avoid a potential conflict of interest. He
furnished a forged document indicating the complainant’s receipt of all his documents back.
The State Bar Council suspended his practice for a period of six years. On appeal, the Bar
Council of Indi reduced the punishment to one year. The case was then appealed before the
Supreme Court.
13.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the order passed and punishment
imposed by the Bar Council of India deserved to be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
13.3. Analysis
The Bar Council of India had observed that even if the case was assigned to a junior, the
clients were only in direct contact with Mr. Rangadurai, and to that extent, the junior
advocate’s evidence that he handed back all papers to Mr. Rangadurai was “probable and
likely”. It further reprimanded Mr. Rangadurai’s conduct as he had “failed in his duty to his
20
fellow advocate very much junior to him”, and that he had acted unprofessionally. It also
made strong statements against the practices of misrepresentation to clients and jeopardizing
their interests.
The Supreme Court in this case emphasised the nobility of the legal profession, while also
recognising that it is, at times, elitist. This meant that the profession’s nobility would last as
long as the members (i.e., the advocates) maintained their ethos and integrity. Given this,
deceiving clients and cheating them warrants disciplinary action and punishment. The Court
noted that punishment should be aimed at both deterrence and correction. Stating so, it went
on to agree with the Bar Council of India’s reduction of the punishment from six years to one
year. This was in line with the fact that the advocate in question was not too aged to learn
how to mend his ways. It agreed with the Bar Council of India’s “benign” approach.
However, Justice A.P. Sen partially dissented, as he believed that being too lenient in the
matter, given the facts of the case, would not be conducive towards the disciplinary role that
Bar Councils play in the legal fraternity.
The Court did not find grounds to interfere with the order of the Bar Council of India, and
therefore, dismissed the appeal.
14. Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1012
The Appellant was an advocate representing his clients (the Complainant) in a criminal case.
The complainants had been assaulted and had injuries on their head. The Complainants
alleged that the Appellant had agreed to represent the Complainants. Subsequently, the
advocate took a brief from the other party and agreed to represent them, regardless of their
conflicting interests. Secondly, he had also taken money from his Complainant to procure a
favourable report from the radiologist, to show that his skull had been fractured.
The Complainant had approached the State Bar Council, which had held the Appellant guilty
of professional misconduct for only the charge of bribery, but held hat representing both sides
of the criminal case was unprofessional, but not professional misconduct. The State Bar
21
Council suspended his practice for three years. The Bar Council of India had upheld this
decision. The case was then appealed before the Supreme Court of India.
14.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered three issues. Firstly, whether the charge of offering a bribe to
the radiologist was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, whether the charge of
changing sides in a criminal case amount to professional misconduct. Thirdly, whether the
punishment imposed on the Appellant was justified.
14.3. Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated its principles laid down in various cases, though not directly
relying on them, that “Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which
might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the profession.” In stating so, the Court concurred with the opinion of the State
Bar Council that the advocate’s primary duty is to his client, and it is unprofessional to accept
the brief of the opposite party in the matter, except with the permission of the Court as
applicable.
On the charge of offering a bribe to the radiologist, the Bar Council of India had concurred
with the State Bar Council that the Appellant’s factual assertions were not believable. The
Complainant had produced a letter containing the offer of a bribe, and the Appellant had
alleged that the letter was in fact for publication of an advertisement. This fact was
completely disproved. The Supreme Court also agreed with the opinion of the Bar Councils.
The Supreme Court stated that unless the Disciplinary Committee’s findings were based on
no evidence, the Court could not interfere with its decision.
Further, the Court noted the State Bar Council’s opinion that practices such as those in this
case “bring the whole legal profession into disrepute”. The Bar Council further observed that
even though the Appellant was still a junior member of the Bar, the nobility of the profession
could not be sacrificed, and no plea of mercy could be granted. The Supreme Court
concurred, however, noted that a suspension of three years was severe considering that the
Appellant was inexperienced and young.
22
The Court concurred with the views of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India,
and did not interfere with their orders. The appeal was dismissed; however, the punishment
was reduced from three years to one year of suspension.
15. V.P. Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 266
The Appellant, an advocate, was appointed as the City Government Pleader for all the civil
courts (except the High Court) in Madras. As part of his duty, he had to represent and advise
the Government for various civil matters from time to time, and he was allowed to take
assistance from junior lawyers of his choice. In a case filed by the Travancore Textiles Pvt.
Ltd., the new Government Pleader had failed to file a fresh memo of appearance and prepare
the written statement. Due to this, the court decreed ex parte against the state. When an
application to set aside was filed, the Court allowed it with a deposit of INR 20 as costs.
However, the cost was not deposited, and the application to set aside the ex parte decree was
dismissed. Similar circumstances relating to appearance had also ensued for another case
leading to another complaint.
The State filed a complaint before the State Bar Council that due to the appellant’s gross
negligence, the state had suffered substantial losses. The Appellant’s defence was that the
office staff provided by the state had not put up the appropriate papers and hence, the suit was
decreed. When appealed before the Bar Council of India, it imposed a punishment of
reprimand. For the second complaint, the Bar Council of India held the Appellant guilty of
constructive negligence and reprimanded him. The Appellant approached the Supreme Court
aggrieved by the Bar Council of India’s orders
15.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered whether the Bar Council of India’s order regarding
negligence and constructive negligence on the Appellant’s part was valid, and amounted to
15.3. Analysis
The Bar Council of India had taken note of the Appellant’s defence that his staff had not put
the appropriate papers before him in both the cases. It noted that although the papers were not
23
presented, the subsequent lapse regarding the deposit of costs could only be attributed to the
Appellant. Further, although there were certain mitigating circumstances that showed that the
losses were not solely the fault of the Appellant, and was attributable to his predecessor as
well his junior staff who had not placed appropriate information and papers before him. Part
of the negligence had ensued before the Appellant himself had taken charge as the
Government Pleader. Given this, the Bar Council had imposed a “lighter punishment of
severe reprimand,” as he was a fairly experienced and Senior Advocate.
In respect of the second complaint, the Bar Council of India had held that the Appellant had
failed to properly manage and control his office due to the “rush of work” and his negligent
staff. Hence, the Bar Council had opined that it amounted to “constructive negligence”. The
Bar Council had not expressed that there was mala fide conduct on behalf of the Appellant.
Nevertheless, in both complaints, the Bar Council of India had termed the conduct as
professional misconduct. The Supreme Court concurred with the Bar Council of India’s
opinion that negligence had ensued; however, as there was no moral delinquency on behalf of
the Appellant, the Court reversed the Bar Council of India’s finding that the Appellant was
guilty of professional misconduct.
The Supreme Court allowed the Appellant’s appeals, and held that the Appellant’s actions did
not amount to professional misconduct.
16. Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli, (2004) 5 SCC 689
The Appellant was the landlord to certain tenants who were both parties to a rent control
proceeding before the small causes court. The Respondent in this case, Mr. Murli, was the
advocate who represented the tenants. The Appellant approached the State Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu with an allegation that the Respondent and the tenants had engaged in various
mal activities during the pendency of the court proceedings – including physical violence,
threats and coercing the Appellant to fail in his appearance for evidence, etc. Further, the said
advocate was also one of the tenants.
24
The State Bar Council constituted a Disciplinary Committee to hear the complaint and initiate
proceedings. The matter was then transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council
did not find the Respondent-Advocate guilty of professional misconduct, as he had appeared
as a litigant in the case, nor as an advocate. The proceedings were dropped. The Appellant
challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
16.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the orders passed by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India were valid.
16.3. Analysis
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had found no misconduct or
violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Bar Council of India Rules on behalf of the
Respondent. The Committee based its opinion on two reasons i.e., first, the Respondent had
appeared as a party-in-person in the case, and not as an advocate; second, when the alleged
acts occurred, neither an FIR had been lodged nor had a private complaint been filed. Given
this, the Committee stated that the very fact that these incidents occurred was not reliable.
The Appellant vehemently contended before the Supreme Court that these actions were not
expected from a person who is a member of the legal profession. Further, the Court also
observed that the Appellant had not taken any action against the Respondents for the alleged
violations, be it through an FIR or a private complaint. Even though the said violations
allegedly occurred in the court room, the Appellants had not approached the presiding officer
or any other officer of the court either. This pointed towards the unreliability of the
allegations.
The Supreme Court noted that although misconduct is not defined in the Advocates Act,
1961, it is wide enough to include “improper behaviour, intentional wrongdoing, or deliberate
violation of a rule or standard of behaviour”. These standards are applicable to advocates and
lawyers who are members of the legal profession. However, the Court stated that professional
misconduct should be judged in light of the profession, and not for any misconduct that may
be committed by a person who is also a member of the legal profession. Given this, the Court
also relied on earlier precedents to establish that only an order which is irrational could
warrant an interference by the Court on appeal.
25
The Court dismissed the appeal, and held that the present order of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India did not warrant interference. The Court upheld the
views of the Bar Council of India.
17. John D’Souza v. Edward Ani, AIR 1994 SC 975
The Appellant in the case was a practicing advocate in Bangalore, Karnataka. The
Respondent was a former client of the Appellant. Previously, the Respondent had requested
the Appellant to draft a Will on his behalf. The Appellant obliged, and even entered the same
into the register of Wills that he maintained for his clients. The Will was then entrusted to the
Appellant for safekeeping. Eventually, the Respondent had changed his lawyer. Therefore,
the Respondents requested the Appellant to return the Will. To this effect, they had sent him
two letters. However, the Appellant refused to return it.
The Respondents first filed a complaint with the Karnataka State Bar Council. The complaint
was rejected by the State Bar Council. The Respondent then applied for a revision before the
Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India set aside the rejection of the State Council and
remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. The State
Bar Council had held that the Appellant was not guilty of any professional misconduct. The
Respondent then appealed the matter before the Bar Council of India, which reversed the
findings of the State Bar Council. The matter was then appealed before the Supreme Court by
the Appellant.
17.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Appellant had violated the
attorney-client relationship and trust required as per law, and if such violation amounted to
17.3. Analysis
Initially, the State Bar Council had opined that there had been no professional misconduct. In
passing, it had stated that the Appellant should be careful thereafter in “such matters”.
26
However, this finding was reversed by the Bar Council of India, which opined that the
Appellant had committed professional misconduct. The Bar Council of India had disagreed
with the State Council’s approach in emphasising on the delay in filing the complaint and
lack of evidence backing its findings. The Bar Council of India also suspended the Appellant
from practising for a period of one year.
The Appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Will had in fact been
returned to the person who wanted it created i.e., the testator who was alive at that time. The
Respondents refuted this claim and sated that there was a “blatant violation” of the attorney-
client relationship, and the confidence that a client places in his attorney. The Supreme Court
observed that first the Appellant had denied possession of the Will and subsequently stated
that he had already returned it. This factual inconsistency shook the Appellant’s case. The
Court observed that no compelling evidence for interference had been put forth.
The Supreme Court stated that the Appellant had not provided any reliable evidence to prove
his version of the facts. Further, the Court stated that in the absence of such evidence, there
was no compelling reason to interfere with the order of the Bar Council of India. The appeal
was dismissed.
18. Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, AIR 2001 SC 2509
In this case, the Respondent was an advocate and the complainant (Appellant) was his client.
The Respondent had written a letter to the client saying that he had received knowledge that
the judge in his case would pass favourable orders if he was offered a monetary bribe. Citing
this, the Respondent asked the Appellant to send him INR 10,000/- for the same. The
Appellant had not sent the money, and approached the State Bar Council with a complaint.
The State Bar Council held that the Respondent was in fact guilty for committing
professional misconduct, and imposed a suspension of two years on him. This decision was
appealed before the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India had upheld the decision
of the State Bar Council, and further increased the punishment for removing his name from
the State rolls altogether. However, upon a revision petition, the Bar Council of India
27
reversed its decision. This decision of the Bar Council of India was appealed before the
Supreme Court of India in this case.
18.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered whether the aforementioned conduct complained of, on the
part of the Respondent, amounted to professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.
18.3. Analysis
During the disciplinary proceedings, the Respondent had not denied the fact that he had asked
for such illegal gratification to be offered to the judge of the case. The Respondent merely
stated that the judge he had referred to had subsequently been terminated from his services
for accepting such bribes. He further applied a defence that he had a duty to inform his client
in the best interest of the client’s case. The Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Council
and the Bar Council of India had held that the Respondent had committed professional
misconduct. In the initial decisions, the Committees relied on the “general interest of the
litigating public”. The Bar Council of India had opined that the Respondent was an
experienced, well-respected advocate, and by demanding money to bribe a judge, he had
engaged in conduct that could never have been expected of him. Based on this, it ordered
removal of the Respondent’s name from the rolls as well as a fine of INR 5,000/-.
However, the Bar Council’s revised decision stated that the Respondent himself had no
intention of bribing the judge, and he had merely conveyed certain information to the client.
It also relied on the circumstances of the Respondent, who was eighty years of age, and his
clean past records. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this decision, stating that the
grounds on which the decision was revised were “non-existent”. It further stated that the
misconduct was serious, and as an officer of the Court, it was their duty to also protect public
interest. The Supreme Court stated that regardless of the past record and experience of the
Respondent, his conduct was capable of “shaking” the profession’s credibility and morality.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and also imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the
Respondent. The original order of the Bar Council of India holding the Respondent guilty and
imposing punishment of removal his name from the rolls was restored.
28
19. R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 2912
The Appellant, Mr. Saxena, was an advocate practicing in Madhya Pradesh. He had been
engaged on retainership by the State Cooperative Bank. Subsequently, after a few years, the
bank terminated the retainership and sought the return of all their files and documentation.
Instead of making such return, the Appellant furnished them with a consolidated bill of
around INR 97,000. Further, he informed the bank that unless the amounts were paid in full,
he would not return the files and documents. The parties tried to negotiate, and unfortunately,
failed in the exercise.
The bank complained to the State Bar Council. As the period of one year before the State Bar
Council had elapsed, the matter was transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India had held that the Appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct, and had also imposed a fine of INR 1,000, and suspended his practice for
eighteen months. The matter was then appealed before the Supreme Court.
19.2. Issues
The Supreme Court considered the question of whether an advocate who retains the files and
documentation of the client until the pending or overdue fees are paid to him is committing
professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.
19.3. Analysis
The Appellant, in the proceedings before the Bar Council of India, had stated that he had a
“right of lien” over the files and documentation of the bank as his furnished bills had not been
paid as of yet. However, the Bar Council of India opined that the bank was a public
institution, and the Appellant had a duty to return their documents. On this basis, the Bar
Council of India opined that the Appellant had committed professional misconduct, and
ought to be punished. The bank, on the other hand, had contended that no fees were left to be
paid by it, and the Appellant had actually furnished hiked fees in his bills. It was their
contention that no such lien for an advocate existed.
The Supreme Court relied on the principles of the Constitution, to state that every litigant in
the country holds a right to engage an advocate of his choice as per Article 22. Further, it
29
stated that this included the right to change one’s advocate without being held back through
retaining some files or documents. In its analysis, the Court also pointed out that such
retention merely on account of pending fees was a form of professional misconduct covered
under the Advocates Act, 1961. To support its position, the Court also relied on the definition
of “goods” under the Indian Contract Act, 1871 and held that a client’s files are not “goods”
and cannot be covered by a lien. According to the Court, as an advocate, the Appellant had a
moral duty to assist clients within the walls of professional and ethical conduct. As the Bar
Council of India Rules only permit an advocate to deduct a client’s money on account of fees,
and not a right of lien over his files or documents, the Appellant’s conduct was a violation
and warranted punishment.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Bar Council of India’s decision that the
Appellant was guilty of professional misconduct. The Court also made observations on the
importance of a code of ethics for all advocates to adhere to the Advocates Act, 1961.
20. P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti, (1997) 7 SCC 147
In this case, the Appellant was an advocate who had purchased a certain property from his
client. This property was the subject matter of an on-going dispute. It had been alleged that
the Appellant could have exercised undue influence over his client, given that the very title to
the property was being litigated before the Court. As the Appellant had purchased the
property at a very low price, he was made party to the suit. He then sold the property to a
third party, and played a role in increasing the complexity of the dispute further.
Notwithstanding this, he had also gained certain profits from his sale to the third party.
The matter was brought before Delhi Bar Council. However, as one year lapsed and the case
was not decided, it was transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India
ruled that the Appellant was in fact guilty of professional misconduct, and had therefore
suspended his practice for one year. The matter was appealed before the Supreme Court of
India.
20.2. Issues
30
The Supreme Court considered two issues i.e., first, whether the Bar Council of India had
rightly suspended the practice of the Appellant, and second, whether the punishment imposed
was proportionate to the professional misconduct committed by the Appellant.
20.3. Analysis
The Bar Council of India had opined that the Appellant’s client was involved deep into the
property dispute and despite this, the Appellant had purchased the disputed property. The
Appellant had defended himself stating that the sale was made to him without any pressure or
outside influence, and the complaint before the Bar Council was only filed based on mala
fides. Given the facts of the case and the defence raised, the Bar Council of India had stated
that the Appellant had acted completely in violation of professional ethics. It also opined that
a lawyer has a “commanding status” over a client’s case, and may easily “exert influence”.
Therefore, it was held appropriate that exemplary punishment in the form of suspension for
one year be imposed to deter such conduct in the future.
The Supreme Court stated that every advocate has an equal right to purchase property as
other persons do. The Court added, however, that purchasing a property with a title dispute is
beyond the realms of prudence. It was stated that purchasing such property merely to make
profit by reselling it, having knowledge of the dispute and the fact that it can be purchased for
a low price clearly amounted to professional misconduct. As the Appellant had no real reason
to purchase the property, his intentions were clear. Thus, the Court concurred with the
opinion of the Bar Council of India.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India.
Further, it opined that the State Bar Council ought to have decided the case expeditiously.
31

Sanjana Tutorial1&2 Sept2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanjana Tutorial1&2 Sept2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanjana Tutorial1&2 Sept2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TUTORIAL I & TUTORIAL II

Batch 2017-22 BA LLB

Course: Professional Ethics

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Symbiosis International University, PUNE

Under the guidance of

Dr. Sanu Rani Paul

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

1.1. Facts of the case

1.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

2. Rajendra V. Pai v. Alex Fernandes, (2002) 4 SCC 212

2.1. Facts of the case

3. Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakarma (2012) 1 SCC 741

3.1. Facts of the case

3.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

4. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. Karupati Satyanarayana, AIR 2003 SC 175

4.1. Facts of the case

4.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

5.1. Facts of the case

5.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

6. Narain Pandey v. Pannalal Pandey, (2013) 11 SCC 435

6.1. Facts of the case

6.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

7. Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC

7.1. Facts of the case

7.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

8. Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v. Balwant Singh Thakur, AIR 2018 SC 199

8.1. Facts of the case

8.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

9. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45

9.4. Conclusion and decision of the case

10. An Advocate v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1989 SC 245

10.1. Facts of the case

The Supreme Court of India considered the following five issues:

Secondly, whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a

Fourthly, whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?

10.4. Conclusion and decision of the case

11.1. Facts of the case

11.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

12. Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291

12.1. Facts of the case

12.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

13. V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors., (1979) 1 SCC 308

13.1. Facts of the case

13.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

14.1. Facts of the case

14.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

15.1. Facts of the case

15.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

16. Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli, (2004) 5 SCC 689

16.1. Facts of the case

17. John D’Souza v. Edward Ani, AIR 1994 SC 975

17.1. Facts of the case

17.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

18.1. Facts of the case

18.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court

19.1. Facts of the case

19.4. Conclusion and decision of the Court