Allahabad High Court Sets Aside 10 Year Suspension Placed On Advocate Over Bigamy Allegations

The Allahabad High Court, while setting aside a 10 year suspension placed on an Advocate by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council over bigamy allegations, has noted that the impugned order is passed ex-parte without granting any opportunity of hearing, which is violative of the principle of natural justice.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council placing a 10 year suspension on the Petitioner and debarring him from practice in any court or before any authority or person of India.

The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held, "The show cause notice was issued on February 17, 2025 for appearance on March 10, 2025 and impugned order was passed on February 23, 2025 which makes it evident that the impugned order is passed ex parte without granting any opportunity of hearing which is violative of the principle of natural justice."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rakesh Kumar Nayak while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Subhash Chandra Pandey.

The Counsel for the Petitioner had argued that the entire proceedings that have resulted in the impugned order were carried out behind his back and without giving any notice to him.

The Counsel had further submitted that the Petitioner has not been convicted of any offence of bigamy, and accordingly, the punishment of suspending him for a period of 10 years is without any basis in law and is premature. He further submitted that even if it is proved that he has committed bigamy, the offence of bigamy cannot amount to an offence that involves moral turpitude.

It was argued that an act of bigamy cannot be termed to be an act that is inherently base, vile or depraved and that the offence of bigamy would not in any manner shock the conscience of the general public.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in SBI v. P. Soupramaniane, (2019), in which the Court had enunciated factors that are pertinent to be kept in mind while inferring moral turpitude as grounds for dismissal from service.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sushil Kumar Rawat v. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman And Another (2025:AHC-LKO:78203-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates Rakesh Kumar Nayak and Dushyant Kumar

Respondent- Advocates Subhash Chandra Pandey, Shahid Salam and Zeba Wasi

Click here to read/ download Order