Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has held that an advocate who merely attests or identifies the deponent of an affidavit does not thereby assume responsibility for the truth or correctness of the statements made in it.

Dismissing a special leave petition arising out of disciplinary proceedings against Mumbai-based advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, the Court upheld a Bombay High Court order quashing the complaint and termed the allegations against her as “absurd, untenable and malicious.”

Background Of The Case

The complaint was filed by Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, a former lecturer who later became an advocate, in connection with a long-standing dispute with Ismail Yusuf Junior College. Bhakad alleged that Shastri, by identifying the deponent of an affidavit filed with a chamber summons in his civil suit, had effectively endorsed false statements contained in it and was therefore guilty of offences like forgery, perjury and cheating.

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) registered the complaint and referred it to the Disciplinary Committee for inquiry.

High Court And Supreme Court Findings

The Bombay High Court, in its order dated August 9, 2023, quashed the complaint, observing that Shastri had never sworn any affidavit and her role was limited to identifying the deponent. Merely doing so, the Court held, could not make her privy to the contents of the affidavit.

Upholding this finding, the Supreme Court observed:

"An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit. Hence, ex facie, the complaint filed by the petitioner, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, against the respondent-advocate was not only bereft of substance but was also founded on malicious and spiteful insinuations directed against the advocate who merely identified the opposite party in an affidavit."

The Court further found that the BCMG's decision to register and pursue the complaint amounted to an “illegal” and “perverse” exercise, resulting in malicious prosecution of the advocate.

Costs Imposed

Terming the complaint as having caused “immeasurable grief and harassment” to the advocate, the Supreme Court imposed ₹50,000 each as costs on the complainant Bhakad and the BCMG. The total of ₹1 lakh is to be deposited with the Bombay High Court registry within four weeks and paid to Shastri.

Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa For Entertaining Frivolous Complaint Against Advocate

Jural Relationship Between Complainant & Advocate Necessary To Invoke Disciplinary Jurisdiction For Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court

Case : Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

Click here to read the judgment