BCI Has No Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal When Special Committee Hasn’t Completed Probe & State Bar Council Hasn’t Imposed Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Petition filed before the High Court was instituted on the basis of allegation that the President made allotment of chambers to ineligible advocates and there were defalcation of funds.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri explained, “However, when the Special Committee concerned, has not yet completed its probe, nor has made any final recommendations to the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, nor when the latter has proceeded to impose any punishment upon co-respondent No 4. Resultantly, no jurisdiction became foisted upon the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, either to entertain the appeal or to pass any order thereon. As such, the impugned order is made on an ill-constituted appeal, besides, the same is non-est”.

Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Birender Singh Rana represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The complainant, one Jagmal Sing,h raised allegations of defalcation of funds of the District Bar Association, Karnal. It was also alleged that the co-respondent No.4 (the outgoing President) made allotment of chambers to ineligible advocates. While considering the Writ Petition, the High Court passed a direction upon co-respondent No.4 to produce the original record, and if he failed to do the same, he was asked to assign a plausible explanation for the same. Co-respondent No.4 was showing utmost defiance in complying with the directions, and he didn’t give any tangible explanation for the non-production of the records.

The Special Committee recommended that the co-respondent No.4 be barred from contesting the elections for any post of DBA, Karnal, for the next three years or till the completion of the inquiry, as regards defalcation of funds in the construction of the chambers, whichever was earlier. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India allowed the co-respondent No.4 to contest the elections to the post of the President of the District Bar Association, Karnal. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner-Complainant approached the High Court.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner that there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, upon the DC Appeal and the impugned order could not have been passed.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench observed that the Special Committee had not completed its probe into the allegations raised by the complainant and no final report with any final recommendation was referred to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

Referring to the Advocates Act, the Bench said, “...sub-Section (2) of Section 37 of the Act of 1961, vests jurisdiction in Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, to hear an appeal against an order, thus, awarding punishment by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council concerned. Therefore, when the jurisdiction bestowed upon the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, to also vary the order imposing the apposite punishment, as may have been purportedly imposed upon co-respondent No.4, was so exercisable then alone, besides when then alone the said imposed punishment could be varied in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 37 of the Act of 1961.”

It was further noticed that the interim directions of the Special Committee did magnify that co-respondent No.4, had prima facie acted in conflict with the provisions embodied in sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 1961. Furthermore, the Special Committee had been constituted in terms of the empowerment vested through the mandate occurring in sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act of 1961, in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. As per the Bench, there was but a plain speaking/omission on the part of co-respondent No. 4 to cooperate in the relevant probe as became embarked upon by the special Committee concerned.

Coming to the issue of BCI’s jurisdiction, the Bench asserted, “Consequently, only when punishment becoming imposed upon him or upon imposition of punishment to the supra extent, or some more severe punishment, thus becoming imposed upon him, thereupon, there was bestowment of a jurisdiction in the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council concerned, to entertain the appeal and to make an order thereons. However, since excepting the supra interim recommendations, no further punishment has been imposed upon co-respondent No. 4, therebys, there was no jurisdiction in the supra, to entertain the appeal, and, to pass any order thereons”

The Bench thus held, “ Resultantly therebys, the debarment of co-respondent No.4 from contesting elections to the office of President of the District Bar Association concerned, is imperative, prima facie, both for protecting the interests of legal fraternity, and, for also ensuring the passing of the final recommendations/report.”

It was further held that the impugned order appeared, prima facie, to have been obtained by the co-respondent No. 4, through his practicing the vices of suppressio veri/ suggestio falsi. Thus, finding merit in the Petition, the Bench quashed the impugned order.

Cause Title: Jagmal Singh Jatain v. Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:028402-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate Sandeep Singh

Respondents: Senior Advocate Birender Singh Rana, Advocates Ashwani Talwar, Manav Dhull, Niharika Singh, Nayandeep Rana, Anu Chaudhary, Rahish Pahwa

Click here to read/download Order