Back
Advocate Fails to Challenge BCI via Criminal Proceedings:
The has firmly shut the door on an advocate's attempt to use criminal proceedings as a backdoor to challenge a of the (BCI). Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a filed by advocate , holding that the only remedy against such orders lies in an appeal to the under .
A Question of Jurisdiction
Balasubramaniyan had been found guilty of by the in , following a complaint initiated by the . The State Bar Council imposed a three-year suspension. In a separate matter, he was initially removed from the roll, but the BCI later modified that punishment to a five-year suspension. Instead of appealing the BCI's order to the as provided by law, Balasubramaniyan filed a criminal complaint before the . He alleged that the disciplinary action was linked to his membership of a Scheduled Caste and sought prosecution under the , and various sections. That complaint was rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court in revision.
The Road Not Taken
The petitioner, arguing in person, contended that the was "" and constituted an . He claimed that the punishment was directly connected to his caste identity and therefore attracted the . The respondent, through counsel, countered that the disciplinary action was purely about and had no connection with caste. More fundamentally, the respondent argued that the for challenging the BCI's order was the , not a criminal court.
Caste Allegations Dismissed
The High Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments. Justice Kaurav observed that the disciplinary proceedings were triggered by the
's direction in
and were based on the advocate's professional conduct, not his caste. The court noted:
"From the order dated
of the State Bar Council and dated
of the
, it is clear that punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner for his
which has nothing to do with his being a member of Scheduled Caste."
The court further remarked that accepting the petitioner's logic would mean
"no member of the Scheduled Caste can ever be punished under the Advocates Act for his
,"
which is plainly impermissible.
Final Word: Proper Remedy,
The court reiterated the that an order passed by the BCI's disciplinary committee in appeal under can only be challenged by an appeal to the under Section 38. The High Court's under is supervisory and can only correct —none of which were present. Citing and , the court held that the petitioner had attempted a on the through criminal proceedings, which is impermissible.
Concluding that the impugned order suffered from no infirmity, the court dismissed the petition.
"In view of the foregoing, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order, nor can any of the reliefs sought in the present petition, whether for unsettling the order passed by the BCI, or for the issuance of directions against the proposed accused persons, be granted,"
Justice Kaurav ordered.
The ruling serves as a clear reminder that disciplinary orders of the must be challenged through the , not through criminal complaints or revisional proceedings in the High Court.
