Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000077 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 75503/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies procedural and evidentiary standards in Advocates Act disciplinary proceedings |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside Disciplinary Committee’s order (BCI Transferred Case No. 455 of 2023 dated 4 April 2025) |
| Type of Law | Professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent engaged the appellant-advocate to quash an FIR based on a compromise. A cost order was missed, leading to revival and re-quashing. The respondent then filed a withdrawal affidavit before the State Bar Council. The BCI Disciplinary Committee ignored this affidavit, convicted the advocate of misconduct, and imposed a penalty. The Supreme Court set aside the BCI order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils |
| Overrules | BCI Transferred Case No. 455 of 2023 (order dated 4 April 2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A disciplinary complaint under Section 35 Advocates Act loses its substratum once the complainant withdraws it by sworn affidavit.
- Disciplinary authorities must address any withdrawal affidavit; ignoring it renders proceedings unsustainable.
- Professional misconduct cannot be established on bare allegations; the complainant must be examined on oath.
- Advocates are entitled to cross-examine the complainant before any finding of misconduct.
- Failure to comply with these evidentiary and procedural safeguards will lead to setting aside of disciplinary orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Substratum Ceases on Withdrawal: The Court held that once the respondent-complainant filed a sworn affidavit expressing satisfaction and seeking withdrawal, the foundational basis for proceedings vanished.
- Failure to Address Affidavit: The BCI Disciplinary Committee “glossed over” this affidavit, ignoring the complete resolution of the grievance.
- Lack of Evidence: No evidence was led by the complainant to substantiate the allegations; the committee acted on “bald allegations.”
- Procedural Fairness: The Court emphasised the advocate’s right to have the complainant examined on oath and cross-examined. Absence of this renders findings legally unsustainable.
- Totality of Circumstances: Considering the amicable resolution and procedural lapses, the Supreme Court set aside the BCI’s finding of professional misconduct.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant-Advocate)
- The dispute arose from a misunderstanding over deposit of court-ordered costs, which was later resolved.
- The respondent filed a withdrawal affidavit expressing full satisfaction with the advocate’s services.
- No evidence was led; findings were based solely on untested allegations without cross-examination.
Respondent (Respondent-Complainant)
- The complaint was filed out of frustration over enhanced costs and not due to professional negligence.
- A sworn affidavit was submitted withdrawing the complaint after the costs issue was amicably settled.
- No further disciplinary action was desired once the FIR was ultimately quashed.
Factual Background
The respondent was accused in an FIR and engaged the appellant-advocate to file a quashing petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. After initial quashing, the petition was dismissed for non-payment of costs, then restored and finally quashed on payment. The respondent then filed a complaint under Section 35 Advocates Act alleging professional misconduct. During those proceedings, he filed a sworn affidavit withdrawing the complaint. The BCI Disciplinary Committee ignored this affidavit, found misconduct, and imposed a penalty, which led to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961: Governs initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the basis of complaints by parties.
- Section 38, Advocates Act, 1961: Provides for statutory appeal to the Supreme Court against final orders of the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee.
- The judgment underscores that procedural provisions imply fairness: complainant’s withdrawal and examination on oath are integral to sustaining a complaint.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms that disciplinary proceedings lapse upon complainant’s sworn withdrawal and require proper evidence.