27 Jan 2024 9:39 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 25) stayed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India imposing a cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- on the advocate for filing a vague complaint against another advocate before the Bar Council.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stayed that part of the order which imposed the cost on the complainant, failing which her license will be suspended for the period of six months.
“However, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council has imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant while dismissing the complaint and passed very drastic order that if the cost amount is not paid, the license of the appellant will be suspended. We stay that part of the impugned order by which cost has been imposed and consequences of non-deposit of cost has been provided.”, the court noted while granting a stay on the imposition of the cost on the complainant.
Briefly put, the complainant and the respondent are real sister and brother, respectively. The sister-complainant alleged that her brother-respondent is continuously harassing her by way of writing an email in the language terming it as derogatory and highly objectionable. It is against such derogatory remarks made by her brother, that the complainant brought this matter within the ambit of other professional misconduct as per the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the rules made by the Bar Council of India.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India vide order dated 02.11.2023 dismissed the complaint by terming it as vague and not maintainable under the Advocates Act, 1961. The committee directed the Complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the welfare fund of Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council failing which her license will be suspended for the period of six months.
When the matter was called on for hearing on January 25, the court declined to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Committee concerning the dismissal of the complaint.
“As far as the finding regarding the rejection of the complaint filed by the appellant is concerned, there is no reason to interfere.”
Moreover, the court directed the appellant to also implead the Bar Council of India as party respondent no.2 and issued notice to be returnable on March 15, 2024.
Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, Advocate-on-record represented the appellant-complainant.