| 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 |
| Type of Law | Professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 |
| Questions of Law | Whether disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act can continue once the complainant withdraws the complaint by sworn affidavit and no evidence is led in support of the allegations. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All disciplinary committees under the Advocates Act and subordinate bar councils |
| Persuasive For | High Courts dealing with professional-misconduct petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Disciplinary proceedings stand quashed once the complainant files a sworn affidavit withdrawing the complaint and affirming satisfaction with the advocate’s conduct.
- A disciplinary body must consider and record the withdrawal affidavit; failure to do so renders any adverse finding legally unsustainable.
- No misconduct finding can rest on untested, bald allegations; the complainant must be examined on oath and the advocate must be allowed cross-examination.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to challenge disciplinary orders where the underlying dispute has been resolved and the complainant has withdrawn.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the respondent’s sworn affidavit of 15th December 2022 stating the complaint arose from a misunderstanding over costs, later resolved, and expressing complete satisfaction with the advocate.
- The Disciplinary Committee’s order was examined and found to have ignored this critical withdrawal and not dealt with the affidavit or the satisfaction expressed.
- The Committee also failed to examine the complainant on oath or permit cross-examination, relying solely on allegations in the initial complaint.
- The Court held that once the grievance basis ceases, the disciplinary proceedings lose their foundation and must be quashed.
- The impugned order was set aside as legally unsustainable for want of any evidentiary basis and disregard of the withdrawal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant-Advocate)
- The complaint arose solely from a misunderstanding regarding the deposit of costs ordered by the High Court.
- The respondent-complainant withdrew the complaint by sworn affidavit, expressing full satisfaction.
- No evidence was led; the advocate was not allowed cross-examination.
Respondent (Complainant)
- Fairly conceded through counsel that the affidavit withdrew all allegations and the grievance stood resolved.
Factual Background
Respondent-complainant was arraigned in an FIR and engaged the appellant-advocate to seek quashing based on a settlement. The High Court quashed the FIR on payment of costs which were initially unpaid, leading to its dismissal and later restoration upon payment of enhanced costs. Alleging professional negligence, the complainant lodged a disciplinary complaint. During proceedings the parties settled the cost dispute, the FIR was finally quashed, and the complainant filed a sworn affidavit withdrawing the disciplinary complaint. The BCI’s Disciplinary Committee nevertheless proceeded and found misconduct, imposing a fine and potential suspension—an order now set aside on appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961: empowers State Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings on professional misconduct complaints.
- Section 38, Advocates Act, 1961: provides right of appeal to Supreme Court against Disciplinary Committee orders.
- The judgment underscores that disciplinary powers are circumscribed by the requirement of a live grievance and adherence to fair-trial standards (examination and cross-examination).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirms that professional-misconduct proceedings cannot proceed without a live complaint and requisite evidentiary process under the Advocates Act.