1. Appeal against the suspension of an advocate's license to practice by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1387
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., K.G.Balakrishnan : R.C.Lahoti, JJ.
Haribhau Namdeo Shingote
Versus
State Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa
Case No. : 3652 of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/24/00
The court may reduce the period of suspension of an advocate's license if the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, considering factors such as the practitioner's age and the duration of suspension already served.
Headnote:(A) Professional Misconduct - Suspension of license to practice - Quantum of punishment - Reduction of suspension period based on proportionality and circumstances of the practitioner. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An advocate was suspended from the roll of advocates for a period of three years by a state regulatory body, a decision subsequently confirmed by the national disciplinary committee. The practitioner appealed to the court, contending that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, especially considering the practitioner's age and the period of suspension already undergone.
Findings of Court:
Upon consideration of the record and various factors, the court deemed it appropriate to restore the license to practice with effect from 1/10/2000, thereby reducing the period of suspension.
Issues: Whether the three-year suspension of the license to practice was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense committed by a young advocate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its discretion to modify the punishment, reducing the suspension period based on the specific circumstances of the practitioner and the duration of the suspension already served.
Result: Appeal disposed of with modification in punishment; suspension reduced to 30/09/2000 and costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission that the suspension period was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense given the advocate's age and the hardship suffered. (Para 2 )
3. Consideration of the record and relevant factors to determine the appropriate duration of the suspension. (Para 3 )
4. Disciplinary sanctions may be modified to ensure the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the professional misconduct and the circumstances of the practitioner. (Para 3 )
5. Suspension period reduced and license restored, with a direction to pay costs to the State Bar Council. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Can a court modify the duration of a suspension imposed by a Bar Council?
Yes, the court has the authority to restore a license to practice and reduce the period of suspension after reviewing the record and considering relevant factors. (Para 3 )
7. What considerations influence the reduction of a disciplinary suspension for an advocate?
The court may consider the gravity of the offense, the proportionality of the punishment, the age of the advocate, and the hardship suffered during the suspension. (Para 2 , 3 )
JUDGMENT
A.S.ANAND, CJI.
(1) THE appellant has come up in appeal against an order dated 20th February, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, whereby an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 13/01/1989 passed by the Bar Council for the State of Maharashta and Goa (for short the State Bar Council) was confirmed. The State Bar Council had suspended the appellant from the roll of Advocates for practising for a period of three years. The period of suspension was upheld by the Bar Council of India vide order impugned before us. Subsequently, it appears that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India vide order dated 31/05/1999 had stayed the operation of its earlier order dated 20/02/1999 for a period of six weeks to enable the appellant to move this Court. The appellant at present is suspended from practice.
(2) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has taken us through the order of the State Bar Council as also the appellate order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Bar Council of India were not sustainable, but faced with the evidence on which the Bar Council of India had relied and the manner of consideration of the material on record, learned counsel confined himself to the question of period of suspension only. It is submitted that the punishment for suspending the licence to practise for a period of three years for a young advocate was out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and that the appellant, a young advocate, has now learnt his lesson and has suffered much because of the suspension of his license to practise for the last about 15 months or so. It is submitted that the sentence of suspension of licence may kindly be reduced as the entire family of the advocate is suffering.
(3) AFTER giving the entire record our careful consideration and keeping in view various factors as are available on the record, it appears to us appropriate to restore the license to practise to the appellant with effect from 1/10/2000. The suspension shall, therefore stand reduced to the period till 30/09/2000. The appellant shall, however, pay Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) only by way of costs to the State Bar Council.
(4) WITH the aforesaid modification in punishment, this appeal is disposed of.
