Recording Of Reasons To Believe Misconduct By Advocate Essential Before Referring Complaint To Disciplinary Committee: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa challenging the Bombay High Court’s interim order staying further proceedings in a disciplinary complaint against an advocate.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing the matter, observed: “The scheme of Section 35 of the 1961 Act exposits that where a complaint is received from the State Bar Council, it must record its reasons to believe that any Advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, and only thereafter can the matter be referred for disposal to the DC. For ready reference”.

Senior Advocate S.R. Singh represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The complaint in question was filed alleging fraudulent consent terms in relation to a property dispute. The complainant claimed that his rights as heir to a partner had been deprived due to the suppression of material facts by an Advocate. On this basis, the State Bar Council had referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee.

The respondent-advocate, however, contended that he had merely identified the plaintiff in the consent terms and that the complaint was mala fide and that the order of reference was cryptic, without any application of mind.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court noted that the respondent-advocate had not represented the complainant or his predecessor and had only identified the plaintiff in the consent terms, which continued to be in effect. In this context, the Court held that there was no professional relationship between the complainant and the advocate, observing that “the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of 'professional misconduct”.

While making these observations, the Apex Court also underscored the gravity of referring a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, cautioning that such action could have a long-lasting impact on an advocate’s reputation and career. The Bench noted that “reference of a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession.”

The Bench further clarified that a referral order could not be made mechanically or without application of mind, holding that “a cryptic order referring the complaint to the DC without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations contained in the complaint would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order.”

In the present case, the Bench observed, the order passed by the Judge-Advocate of the Council, referring the complaint to the DC, was “absolutely cryptic and laconic for it does not record any satisfaction to the effect that the respondent-advocate had committed misconduct as provided under Section 35 of the 1961 Act.”

Conclusion

The appeal was accordingly disposed of with costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for entertaining what the Court described as a frivolous complaint.

The proceedings sought to be undertaken in pursuance of the complaint were quashed and set aside, and the pending writ petition before the High Court was closed.

Cause Title: Bar Council of Goa and Maharashtra Vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1147)

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate S.R. Singh, with Advocates Arvind S. Avhad, AOR, Rajat Kapoor, Sushil Sonkar, Nitin Jain, Yash Tiwari, Adv. (VC) Praveen Kumar Jha, AOR

Respondents: Senior Advocates Chander Uday Singh & Prasenjit Keswani, with Advocates Rohan Thawani, Pooja Dhar, AOR, Aakriti Vikas, Upmanyu Tewari, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment