Judgment

SINHA, C.J.I. : The Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court in December 1958. In January 1961 he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court. The proceeding against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in O. IV-A of the SC Rules.

2. In March this year the Registrar of this Court received a letter, marked Secret , from the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of Law and Judiciary, to the effect that the Advocate on Record" of the SC had addressed a postcard, dated January 1, 1961 to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra, which "constitutes a gross case of advertisement and solicitation for work". The original postcard was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the SC for such action as to their Lordships may deem fit and proper. The postcard, which was marked as Ex. A in the proceedings which followed, is in these terms :

"TRILOK SINGH ARORA

Advocate on Record.

SC,

Office and Residence B-9, Model Town,

Delhi-9.

Dated 19-1-61.

Dear Sir,

Jai Hind.

Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of Order IV of the SC Rules 1950 (as amended upto date) to appoint an Advocate on Record in the SC as according to this rule no advocate other than an advocate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advocate on Record .

You might have got an Advocate on Record in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if you so wish and agree.

Hoping to be favoured.

Thanks,

Yours sincerely,

Sd: Trilok Singh Arora,

To

The Minister of Law,

Government of Maharashtra,

Bombay."

When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice; he directed the Registrar informally to enquire from the Advocate concerned whether the postcard in question had been written by him and bore his rubber stamp and signature. The Registrar called him, and in answer to his queries the Advocate admitted that the postcard bore his rubber stamp & signature and that it had in fact, been despatched by him. He also informed the Registrar that he had addressed similar postcards to other parties. The Advocate added that he did not realise that in addressing those postcards he was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette. The Chief Justice, on receiving the aforesaid information, placed the matter before a Committee of 3 Judges of this Court, under R. 2 O. IV-A. The Committee considered the matter referred to it, and on receiving its opinion, the Chief Justice constituted a Tribunal of three members of the Bar, Shri Bishan Narain and Shri A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocates, and Shri I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with Shri Bishan Narain as its President, for holding the necessary enquiry into the alleged conduct of the Advocate proceeded against. In reply to the notice served on the Advocate, he chose to behave in a most irresponsible way by alleging that the complaint in question by the Government of Maharashtra "is false, mala fide and misconceived". He denied that he had written the letter in question, which he characterised as "the work of any miscreant". He added further that even if it were proved that the letter in question had been written by him, a mere perusal of it would show that there was nothing unprofessional or otherwise objectionable in it, and he added further that "certainly it is not solicitation of work if one inquires from any person whether it requires or wishes and agrees to have the services of another advocate". The Advocate was examined as witness on his own behalf and the Tribunal put the postcard to him. The following questions by the Tribunal and answers by the Advocate will show the determined way in which he denied what he had admitted to the Registrar.

"Tribunal : This postcard which has been brought to the notice of the Court purports to be from you. Is this the postcard which you have written?

Witness : N