Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court of India has held that disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961, can ordinarily be invoked only when there exists a jural (professional) relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while quashing proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), described such complaints as “highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for.”

Frivolous Complaints by Opposite Parties Rejected

The lead matter, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors., arose out of a complaint alleging that advocate Rajiv Narula suppressed facts in a decades-old property dispute, resulting in a fraudulent consent decree. The complainant, however, was never represented by Narula.

"Since the respondent-advocate was not representing the complainant or his predecessor Devji Parmar, there was no justification behind his arraignment in the complaint for alleged misconduct within the meaning of Section 35 of the 1961 Act," the Court said.

"We say so for the reason that 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. Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of “professional misconduct”"

The Court also noted that the role of the advocate was confined to identifying the parties in the consent decree and not representing anyone.

Bar Council must pass reasoned order while referring complaint to the Disciplinary Committee

The Court also faulted the Bar Council for referring the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee without recording reasons. It reiterated that a speaking order reflecting satisfaction about misconduct is a sine qua non for a valid reference under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

"The scheme of Section 35 of the 1961 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 DC."

The July 6, 2023 order of the BCMG was found to be “absolutely cryptic and laconic,” lacking even a bare reference to the allegations.

"Thus, recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry."

Same Principle Applied in Connected Case

The Bench applied the same reasoning in a connected matter concerning advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, where the complainant accused her of complicity merely for attesting an affidavit. The Court rejected the allegations as “wholly absurd and untenable,” clarifying that identifying a deponent does not make an advocate privy to the affidavit's contents.

"An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit," the Court said.

Costs Imposed for Harassment

Finding the prosecutions to be instances of malicious litigation by opposing parties, the Court not only quashed the proceedings but also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the BCMG in each case and an additional ₹50,000 on the complainant Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, payable to the advocates concerned for the harassment caused.

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

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

Click here to read the judgment