Can't be disciplinary proceedings against advocate without recording reasons: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said recording of reasons to believe that an advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry under Advocates Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pointed out the scheme of Section 35 of the Act exposits that where a complaint is received from the State Bar Council, it must record its reasons to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, and only thereafter can the matter be referred for disposal to the disciplinary committee.

Dealing with a plea by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the court found the complaint filed against respondent advocate Rajiv Narula for alleged professional misconduct was referred to the disciplinary committee by a cryptic order.

"Reference of a complaint of the disciplinary committee would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession. Hence a cryptic order without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order,'' Justice Mehta wrote in a judgment for the bench.

The bench dismissed the petition against the stay on the proceedings and quashed the complaint filed against Narula. It imposed Rs 50,000 cost on the BCMG for entertaining the frivolous complaint and for dragging Narula to this court.

The court found since Narula was not representing the complainant or his predecessor Devji Parmar, there was no justification to name him for alleged misconduct.

It pointed out, there existed no professional relationship between the respondent advocate and the complainant.

"His prosecution, as being the lawyer of the opposite party in the suit before the High Court, was highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for,'' the bench said.

The court underscored, ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction.

In a connected matter, the bench also pulled up the BCMG for entertaining a complaint against advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, for merely identifying the deponent in an affidavit.

The court said the High Court was perfectly justified in its findings that the allegations set out in the complaint were wholly absurd and untenable.

"An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit,'' the bench said, imposing cost of Rs 50,000 each on BCMG and the complainant, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad to be paid to the respondent advocate.