While observing that any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court has issued a warning against an Advocate for his alleged misconduct inside the court premises.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India suspending the appellant-Advocate from practice for a period of one year. By an interim order, the order of suspension of the appellant had been stayed and not been given effect to.

The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekar held, “However, at the same time, behaviour of a lawyer in the Court premises is one such important factor which attracts the allegation of misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone.”



“...we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Appeal by issuing warning to the appellant, Sudhendu Prakash Gautam, that he shall always behave properly in the Court premises while dealing with the lawyer on the opposite side, his own client; as also the party on the opposite side as well”, it ordered.

AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare represented the Appellant while AOR Nidhi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellant was a lawyer engaged by one M/s Recon Copier System Private Limited against whom the respondent filed a case in the Labour Court. The respondent/ complainant lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi alleging that after his application was dismissed, the appellant caught the respondent/ complainant from his collar; gave a beating and abused and threatened to kill the respondent/complainant in the Court premises (toilet). It was alleged that the appellant also forced the respondent/complainant to withdraw the complaint which he had filed against him.

The respondent/complainant lodged a police complaint with the Commissioner of Police, and thereafter, a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi was submitted. The complaint was eventually taken up for consideration by the Bar Council of India.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the appellant was not heard properly by the Bar Council of India when his prayer for adjournment was rejected. “However, we are not inclined to remit the matter back to the Bar Council of India as almost 21 years have elapsed after submission of complaint by the respondent/ complainant to the Bar Council of Delhi”, it added.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the appellant was not a counsel for the respondent/complainant before the Labour Court and there was no allegation of any professional misconduct qua the Court proceedings. The Bench noted that the allegation of professional misconduct was based on the incident that happened inside the Court premises on the date when the respondent-complainant’s application was dismissed by the Labour Court.

The Bench further noticed that the culpability part of the incident which happened in the Court premises was already informed to the Police and, as per the Bench, the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India had no role to play in this part of the dispute.

Emphasising the fact that every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises, the Bench disposed of the matter by modifying the suspension order and issuing a warning to the appellant that he would always behave properly in the Court premises while dealing with the lawyer on the opposite side, his own client as well as the party on the opposite side.

Cause Title: Sudhendu Prakash Gautam v. S.l. Chaudhary (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 791)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare, Advocates Kushagra Sharma, Saransh Maheshwari

Respondent: AOR Nidhi, Advocates Dhruv Maheshwari, Om Kumar, AOR Radhika Gautam

Click here to read/download Order


Justice Prashant Kumar MishraJustice Shree Chandrashekhar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.