Judgment

JUDGMENT : - The Appellant, a fledgling in the legal profession, has been punished by the Tribunal of the Bar Council for eating the forbidden fruit of dubious professional conduct by improperly certifying the solvency of a surety for an accused person, his client. Suspension from practice for one month is the punishment awarded by the trial tribunal and in appeal. Counsel for the appellant Shri Khanduja, has pleaded for an admonitory sentence by the Court ex-misericordium. Of course, the punitive pharmacopoea of the Advocates Act, in Section 35, does permit reprimand provided the ends of public justice are met by this leniency. After all, public professions which enjoy a monopoly of public audience have a statutorily enforced social accountability for purity, probity and people-conscious service. In our Republic, Article 19 (1) (g) vests a fundamental right to practice any profession only subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. (Vide Art. 19 (6)). The law forbids the members of the legal or other like professions from converting themselves into a conspiracy against the laity and all regulations necessary for ensuring a people-oriented bar