Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012232-012232 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 50891/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1980 Supp SCC 318) |
| Type of Law | Professional Disciplinary / Advocates Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a Bar Council’s cryptic reference order without recording prima facie satisfaction of misconduct under Section 35(1) Advocates Act is valid |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Advocates Act, 1961, requires that before referring a complaint to a disciplinary committee under Section 35, a State Bar Council must record reasons to believe that an advocate has been guilty of professional or other misconduct. A cryptic order that simply states a “prima facie case” without discussing the allegations or recording any factual satisfaction fails to comply with Section 35(1). The existence of a jural relationship between complainant and advocate is a precondition for disciplinary jurisdiction. Mere identification of a party in court documents, without more, cannot constitute misconduct. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1980 Supp SCC 318) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A complaint alleged that an advocate procured a consent decree in a suit by suppressing material facts and forging signatures. The State Bar Council’s Judge-Advocate issued a laconic order referring the matter under Section 35. The High Court stayed the reference. On appeal, this Court found no professional relationship, no misconduct in identification of parties, and no recorded reasons—quashing the proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and State Bar Councils |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and the Bar Council of India |
| Follows | Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1980 Supp SCC 318) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A State Bar Council must record prima facie reasons and discuss allegations before referring any complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35.
- Cryptic or laconic reference orders that do not satisfy Section 35(1) are liable to be quashed as non-compliant.
- Disciplinary jurisdiction requires a pre-existing jural (professional) relationship between the complainant and the advocate.
- Mere identification of a party or deponent in court papers does not by itself amount to professional misconduct.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 35(1) Advocates Act mandates that a Bar Council must “have reason to believe” misconduct before referral—requiring a recorded, reasoned satisfaction.
- In Nandlal Khodidas Barot, this Court held that a bare reference without reasons is invalid; that precedent is reaffirmed.
- The impugned reference order contained no discussion of the complaint’s allegations or factual basis—failing the statutory requirement.
- The advocate had no professional relationship with the complainant or his predecessor; disciplinary action absent such relationship is impermissible.
- The advocate’s limited role—identification of a plaintiff in consent terms—cannot be misconstrued as misconduct.
- Consent terms recorded by the High Court remain valid and cannot be challenged via disciplinary proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant–Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
- The High Court’s stay of the Section 35 reference was premature; only a prima facie finding is needed at the cognizance stage.
- Detailed reasons are not required before referring a matter; challenges to Bar Council orders lie before the Bar Council of India.
Respondent–Advocate Rajiv Narula
- The complaint was malicious and lacked foundation; no professional relationship existed.
- The reference order was cryptic, failed to set out allegations, and thus violated Section 35’s mandate.
Factual Background
Rajiv Narula was arraigned for alleged professional misconduct in obtaining a consent decree in a land-dispute suit without notifying certain heirs. The Bar Council’s Judge-Advocate issued a short order under Section 35 Advocates Act referring the matter to its Disciplinary Committee. The Bombay High Court stayed those proceedings. The Supreme Court quashed the entire reference on grounds of lack of recorded reasons, absence of jural relationship, and non-misconduct in the advocate’s role.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35(1) Advocates Act 1961: requires recording of reasons to believe that an advocate has committed misconduct before referral to a disciplinary committee.
- Section 35(3): empowers the committee to reprimand, suspend, or remove an advocate only after hearing.
- Statutory scheme underscores the sentinel role of Bar Councils and the need for reasoned orders to protect advocates’ reputations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed