Principles Of Natural Justice Thrown To The Winds: Bombay HC Stays Order Suspending Licence Of Experienced Woman Advocate for 2 Years
The Petition before the Bombay High Court was filed by a woman lawyer seeking stay on the impugned order passed by the Bar Council of India.

The Bombay High Court came to the aid of an Advocate with 24 years’ experience by staying the order whereby her licence was suspended for 2 years in light of a complaint filed by 3 members of the Advocate Association of Western India.
The Petition before the High Court was filed by a woman lawyer seeking a stay on the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2-Bar Council of India.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice G. S. Kulkarni asserted, “Further what is more important is the case of the petitioner that the complaint was not bonafide or was untenable, being a counter blast in view of the proceedings taken by her against some advocates/ member of the BCMG appears to be of serious nature, as categorically set out in her replies to the complaint., which in our opinion was a relevant aspect to test the bonafides of the complainants in pursuing their belated complaint against the petitioner.”
Senior Advocate Santosh Paul represented the Petitioner while Advocate Yogendra Rajgor represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The three advocates (complainants), who are stated to be members of the Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI) were aggrieved by certain actions of the petitioner in respect of an incident which was alleged to have taken place in Room No.18 -Bar Room in the premises of the Bombay High Court. The Petitioner had allegedly thrown on the floor the briefs of the complainants and such actions were videographed by one of the complainants.
After one year and five months of such incident, the three complainants lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner was using the premises of AAWI although she was not its member. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed suspending the petitioner’s sanad for two years. The Petitioner thus prayed for urgent ad-interim relief of a stay to the impugned order which was stated to be passed by Respondent No.2 Bar Council of India (BCI), although the complaint against the petitioner was filed before Respondent No.1- BCMG under Section 35 of the Act.
Arguments
It was the case of the Petitioners that the procedure which was adopted in passing the impugned order was ex facie illegal. It was submitted that the actions entail civil consequences i.e. taking away the petitioner’s source of livelihood in prohibiting her from practising law as an Advocate for two years. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the petitioner is a single mother with two daughters who are all seriously prejudiced by the impugned order. It was hence submitted that the petitioner has made out a strong prima face case to be entitled to an interim relief of a stay to the impugned order.
The Counsel for BCI submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 38 of the Act to approach the Supreme Court if she is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 36 of the Advocates Act.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the nature of the impugned order certainly entails civil consequences, as it has the effect of taking away the source of livelihood of the petitioner who is an Advocate having a standing of 24 years.
“Further the principles of natural justice appear to have been thrown to the winds which was expected from a responsible statutory body, which is clear from the fact that affidavits of the complaint dated 13 April 2024 were served on the petitioner on the day of the hearing i.e. on 14 April 2024 without any opportunity being granted to the petitioner to deal with such new material, and astonishingly on the same day the impugned order is stated to have been passed”, it said.
As per the Bench, the intent of the complainants appeared to be something else and quite extraneous to the alleged incident. “In the present case, the AAWI itself had not made any complaint against the petitioner and even if such complaint was to be made by any member, it could not have been a complaint entailing consequences of suspension of the licence to practice for two years as imposed on the petitioner”, it held.
“We are also quite astonished as to for what reason the BCMG kept the complaint pending for long years, and / or did not decide the same at the BCMG so as to let the same being transferred to the BCI, is another factor which needs to be gone into. Whether such laxity was intended for ultimate transfer of the proceeding to BCI considering the background and peculiar facts of the case, is also a question”, the Bench asserted.
Thus, the Bench ordered, “Pending final disposal of the petition the impugned order dated 14 April 2024 passed by respondent No.2 Bar Council of India shall remain stayed. As a consequence of the aforesaid orders the Petitioner is entitled to practice as an advocate, duly enrolled on the rolls of the BCMG.”
Cause Title: An Advocate Versus Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa Through Chairman and Ors. (Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16417 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Santosh Paul, An Advocate in person
Respondent: Advocates Yogendra Rajgor, Shekhar Jagtap, Sairuchita Choudhary, APP P.J. Gavhane