Non-adherence to principle of natural justice, HC quashes BCI order against advocate

The high court has quashed an ex-parte order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) barring an advocate from practising in any court of law.

The court cited non-adherence to principles of natural justice in the proceeding adopted by the BCI.

K B Naik, former chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council, was barred from practising in any courts of law. The complaint was filed by Basavaraj Murugesh Jarali, an advocate from Belagavi. The complaint alleged professional misconduct against K B Naik, stating that he had sold the property belonging to his client, an accused in a murder case, by misusing the signatures and creating GPAs.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the BCI had passed the order, which has grave civil consequences on the petitioner, without hearing him and even communicating it to him. The petitioner K B Naik stated that he had come to know of it when the order reached the State Bar Council. The order said that a video conferencing link was sent to the petitioner, and the order was passed since the petitioner did not appear.

The court said that the principle of natural justice evolved beyond the dim mist of eternity. "It is said, God himself did not pass any sentence on Adam before calling upon him to make his defence for the act of having consumed the proscribed fruit in the Eden Garden. Therefore, God himself gave an opportunity of hearing to Adam and Eve before passing the sentence for consumption of the forbidden fruit. The principle has emerged since then," the court said.

The court further said, "The rule of natural justice is intended to prevent such power from doing injustice. Therefore, adherence to principles of natural justice is recognised by all civilised states and civilised societies to be imperative, to be followed, when any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body embarks upon determining the dispute between the parties or any order that would be passed resulting in civil consequences." The court has now remitted the matter back and directed the petitioner to appear before the BCI on December 19.

QUOTE

Justice Nagaprasanna
High Court judge

It is said, God himself did not pass any sentence on Adam before calling upon him to make his defence for the act of having consumed the proscribed fruit in the Eden Garden. Therefore, God himself gave an opportunity of hearing to Adam and Eve before passing the sentence for consumption of the forbidden fruit. The principle has emerged since then.