While quashing the suspension order passed against two advocates, the Allahabad High Court has held that an order of suspension as mentioned in Section 35 (3) (c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a final order and cannot be passed at an interim stage by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

The High Court was considering a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order whereby the Chairman, Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had suspended the enrollment of two advocates till further orders.

The Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held, “In the present case, it appears that the authority has suspended the advocates/petitioners from practice till further orders. Firstly, the suspension being for an indefinite period, without specifying its duration, appears to be unsustainable in law. Secondly, once the Disciplinary Committee had passed an order of suspension, no further adverse action could have been taken against the petitioners without issuance of a fresh notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. According to this Court, the order of suspension as mentioned in Section 35 (3) (c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a final order and could not be passed at an interim stage by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

Advocate Mayank Pandey represented the Petitioner while Advocate Shailesh Kumar Pathak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Two advocates, namely, Akhilesh Jaiswal, President, Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow and Avnish Dixit, Secretary, Central Bar Association, had filed an application requesting that a copy of the complaint be provided to them. The charges against both the advocates were serious in nature, as they had rejected the resolution passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as well as the order of the Chairman and published the same in daily newspapers of the State.

The next date of hearing was fixed as October 11, 2026, and meanwhile the license (Enrollment) of both the Advocates was suspended till further orders. They were prohibited from appearing in any Court of law as counsel.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “...furthermore, while the order had adjourned the hearing to 11th October, 2026, it simultaneously proceeds, in the same breath, to suspend the licences of the petitioners till further orders, which appears inconsistent with the law.”

The Bench further explained that as per Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, could have passed only such orders as are enumerated under Section 35(3), which include dismissal of the complaint, passing of direction that the proceedings be filed, reprimanding of the advocate or suspension of the advocate from practice.

The Bench placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in R. Jim v/s. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus (2025), wherein the Court has held that the Advocates Act has not conferred the power on the Bar Council to place an Advocate under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry.

“Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the procedure adopted by the authorities in the present case is not in consonance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in R. Jim (supra)”, it held.

Decision

Thus, quashing the impugned order, the Bench directed the petitioners to appear on the next date fixed.

Cause Title: Akhilesh Jaiswal And Another v. Bar Council Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:LKO:70443-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Mayank Pandey, Aarav Singh, Priya Singh

Respondent: Advocates Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Subhash Chandra Pandey

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: