The Supreme Courtroom lately expunged opposed remarks made towards an advocate by the Bar Council of India (BCI) throughout disciplinary proceedings, observing that such feedback have been unwarranted after the grievance {of professional} misconduct towards him had already been dismissed by the involved State Bar Council.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that after each the State Bar Council had discovered no advantage within the allegations towards the advocate, there was no justification for the BCI to challenge a warning towards him.
The matter arose from a grievance filed underneath Part 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, towards an advocate working towards in courts in Moradabad district, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, who was the husband of the advocate’s sister, alleged that the advocate had threatened and intimidated him amid tensions arising out of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the complainant and the advocate’s sister.
The Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council dismissed the grievance after concluding that it was false, frivolous and motivated by mala fide intentions geared toward harassing the advocate. The State Bar Council additionally imposed prices of Rs 25,000 on the complainant.
The complainant subsequently challenged the choice earlier than the BCI, which refused to intervene with the findings of the State Bar Council and upheld the dismissal of the grievance. It additional put aside the prices imposed on the complainant. Nonetheless, whereas dismissing the enchantment, the BCI additionally issued a warning to the advocate, observing that he ought to chorus from participating in any conduct involving threats or intimidation towards the complainant.
Aggrieved by these remarks, the advocate approached the Supreme Courtroom underneath Part 38 of the Advocates Act.
Permitting the enchantment, the Apex Courtroom famous that each disciplinary committees had concurrently discovered the allegations towards the advocate to be with out advantage. It held that the BCI had exceeded its jurisdiction by recording opposed observations regardless of affirming the State Bar Council’s resolution dismissing the grievance. The Bench additionally identified that the complainant had accepted the concurrent findings of each disciplinary our bodies and had not challenged them earlier than any discussion board. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtroom quashed and expunged the warning and opposed observations made towards the advocate by the BCI.
