The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a State Bar Council must have a valid "reason to believe" that an advocate is guilty of professional or other misconduct before issuing a notice against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri quashed a notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council to an Advocate accused of professional misconduct.

The Court observed that the notice lacked statutory compliance, as the Bar Council had failed to establish a prima facie "reason to believe" before referring the matter for disciplinary proceedings.

"As such the issuance of the impugned notice (Annexure P-2) is a defectively issued notice upon him. The reason for so stating becomes grooved in the obvious ground, that it remains unpreceded by adherence being made, to the (supra) statutory precursor, inasmuch as, no reason to believe becoming formed by the State Bar Council concerned, thus unfolding that the complaint (Annexure P-1) discloses that the present petitioner is prima facie guilty of professional or other misconduct. Resultantly, the (supra) lack makes the impugned show cause notice to be completely vitiated," the Bench said.

Senior Advocate B.S. Rana appeared for the Respondent.

Legal Interpretation of Section 35 of the Advocates Act

Section 35 of the Advocates Act empowers the State Bar Council to refer a complaint against an advocate to its disciplinary committee if it has "reason to believe" that the advocate is guilty of professional misconduct. The disciplinary committee then conducts a hearing and may dismiss the complaint, reprimand the advocate, suspend their practice, or remove their name from the State roll.

The Court emphasized that this requirement ensures that "unnecessary and frivolous complaints" do not lead to unwarranted disciplinary proceedings against advocates.

Court's Observations

In the present case, the Court found that the State Bar Council had issued the notice without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of forming a “reason to believe.”

The Court ruled that, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that this statutory necessity had been met, the disciplinary committee lacked the authority to issue the notice.

The Court observed, "The issuance of the impugned notice is a defectively issued notice… as it remains unpreceded by adherence to the statutory precursor, inasmuch as, no reason to believe was formed by the State Bar Council concerned that the complaint disclosed prima facie professional or other misconduct."

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1980), which underscores that the State Bar Council must apply its mind before proceeding against an advocate.

Conclusion

Holding that the absence of a "reason to believe" rendered the notice and subsequent proceedings vitiated, the Court quashed the complaint, the impugned notice, and all related disciplinary actions against the advocate.

"..this Court finds merit in the instant writ petition, and with the observation(s) aforesaid, the same is allowed. Resultantly, the complaint No.DCE/101/2024 (Annexure P-1), besides the impugned notice dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefroms, are quashed and set aside," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Naresh Dilawari v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and others [Neutral Citation No. 2025:PHHC:012817-DB]

Appearance:-

Respondent: Senior Advocate B.S. Rana, Advocates Nayandeep Rana, Manav Dhull, Jasdev Singh Brar, Yogesh Goel, Deepak Goyal, Vipul Goel

Click here to read/download the Order