Bar Council Disciplinary Proceedings and Professional Misconduct

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors. (2025) quashed disciplinary proceedings against advocates, establishing important principles regarding Bar Council jurisdiction and the requirements for valid disciplinary complaints under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 

What was the Background of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors. (2025) Case? 

First Case - Rajiv Narula Matter: 

• The complaint was filed in 2022 by Khimji Devji Parmar against advocate Rajiv Narula regarding a property dispute involving M/s. Volga Enterprises. 
• Parmar alleged that his deceased father Devji Parmar was a partner in M/s. Volga Enterprises with Dara Nariman Sarkari, and had rights in certain land property. 
• The property dispute was settled through consent terms in Suit No. 2541 of 1985 between M/s Unique Construction and Nusli Randelia before the Bombay High Court. 
• Complainant alleged that advocate Rajiv Narula, representing M/s Unique Construction, suppressed material facts and obtained consent decree without knowledge of Dara Nariman Sarkari. 
• The Judge-Advocate of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) passed an order on July 6, 2023, referring the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for inquiry. 
• Advocate Narula challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, which stayed the disciplinary proceedings. 

Second Case - Geeta Shastri Matter: 

• Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad filed a complaint against advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri in Disciplinary Case No. 264 of 2017. 
  Bhakad alleged that Shastri identified the deponent of an affidavit in a chamber summons filed in a civil suit, making her responsible for false statements in the affidavit. 
• The Bombay High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings in August 2023, finding the allegations wholly absurd and untenable. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Professional Relationship Requirement: 

• The Court emphasized that ordinarily, the existence of a jural (professional) relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for invoking disciplinary jurisdiction on grounds of "professional misconduct." 
• Since Rajiv Narula never represented the complainant or his predecessor, there was no justification for his arraignment in the misconduct complaint. 
• Prosecution of a lawyer merely for being the advocate of the opposite party was held to be "highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for." 

Section 35 Requirements: 

• Under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the State Bar Council must record its reasons to believe that any advocate has been guilty of professional misconduct before referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee. 
• Recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non (essential condition) before complaint referral. 
• he Court cited Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1980), emphasizing that Bar Councils must apply their mind and have reasoned belief of prima facie misconduct. 

Inadequate Reference Orders: 

• The Court found the July 6, 2023 order "absolutely cryptic and laconic" as it did not record any satisfaction regarding misconduct or discuss the allegations. 
• Such orders without "bare minimum discussion of allegations" do not satisfy requirements for valid reference orders and can seriously impact a lawyer's professional career. 

Frivolous Complaints: 

• The Court noted that mere identification of parties in consent terms or affidavits cannot constitute professional misconduct. 
• In the Geeta Shastri case, the Court held that advocates do not become privy to affidavit contents merely by attesting them. 
• Both cases were characterized as "malicious prosecution" at the behest of opponent litigants. 

What is Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961?

About: 

• An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. 
• This Act came into force on 19th May 1961. 
• This Act has been in force in entire India.  
• The Act has a total of 60 sections split into 7 chapters.   

Section 35 of the Act: 

It deals with punishment of advocates for misconduct. 

Initiation of Proceedings [Sub-section (1)]: 

• State Bar Council must have "reason to believe" advocate has committed professional or other misconduct. 
• Upon receiving complaint or suo motu, case must be referred to disciplinary committee for disposal. 
• Requires application of mind and reasoned belief, not automatic referral. 

Transfer of Proceedings [Sub-section (1A)]: 

• State Bar Council can withdraw pending proceedings from one disciplinary committee. 
• Can direct inquiry by another disciplinary committee of same State Bar Council. 
• Can be done suo motu or on application by interested person. 

Notice and Hearing [Sub-section (2)] 

• Disciplinary committee must fix hearing date. 
• Mandatory notice to:  
  • Advocate concerned 
  • Advocate-General of the State 

Powers of Disciplinary Committee [Sub-section (3)]: 

After providing opportunity of hearing to advocate and Advocate-General, committee may: 

• Dismiss the complaint or direct proceedings be filed. 
• Reprimand the advocate. 
• Suspend advocate from practice for specified period. 
• Remove advocate's name from State roll. 

Consequences of Suspension [Sub-section (4)]: 

• Suspended advocate debarred from practicing in any court in India. 
• Suspension applies before any authority or person throughout India. 
• Complete ban during suspension period. 

Advocate-General's Participation [Sub-section (5)]: 

• Advocate-General may appear before disciplinary committee. 
• Can appear personally or through any advocate on his behalf. 
• Participation upon receiving notice under sub-section (2). 

Special Provision for Delhi [Explanation]: 

• In Union Territory of Delhi:  
  • "Advocate-General" means Additional Solicitor General of India 
  • Applies to Sections 35, 37, and 38 

Key Procedural Requirements: 

• Reasoned belief -essential before referral. 
• Natural justice - opportunity of hearing mandatory. 
• Graded punishment - from reprimand to removal. 
• Pan-India effect - suspension applies throughout country.