1. Civil appeal challenging a revisional order by the Bar Council of India dismissing a complaint of professional misconduct against advocates. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 501
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, Manmohan, JJ.
Sailesh Bhansali - Appellant
Vs.
Alok Dhir - Respondent
C.A. No. 3445 of 2025 [@ C.A. Diary No. 36274/2024]
Decided On : 28-02-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Aditya N. Mehta, Adv. Mr. Arsh Khan, Adv. Ms. Niyomi Jariwala, Adv. Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashu Kansal, Adv. Mr. Dipanshu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Aditya N. Mehta, Adv. Mr. Arsh Khan, Adv. Ms. Niyomi Jariwala, Adv. Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashu Kansal, Adv. Mr. Dipanshu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR
An order of affirmation must contain reasons to demonstrate application of mind; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35 - Professional misconduct - Appeal against dismissal of complaint by Bar Council of Delhi - Bar Council of India dismissed revision petition without providing reasons, violating principles of natural justice - An order of affirmation must contain at least brief reasons to demonstrate application of mind. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Legal principles - The necessity of providing reasons in judicial decisions is emphasized, as it reflects the application of mind and ensures transparency in the decision-making process. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his complaint against respondent-advocates for professional misconduct, which was initially dismissed by the Bar Council of Delhi. The Bar Council of India dismissed the revision petition without recording any reasons.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the BCI's order lacked reasoning, which is essential for affirming decisions, and set aside the revisional order, directing BCI to reconsider the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Bar Council of India’s order affirming the dismissal of the complaint without reasons was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order of affirmation must include reasons, even if brief, to demonstrate that there was an application of mind, and the absence of such reasoning necessitated setting aside the BCI's order.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged the dismissal of a professional misconduct complaint; the Bar Council of India maintained that the initial order suffered from no infirmity. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. The revisional order dismissed the petition without recording any reasons, failing to demonstrate the application of mind despite noting the facts and arguments. (Para 4 )
4. Orders of affirmation must contain brief reasons to demonstrate the application of mind, as a conclusion without reasons is legally unsustainable. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Revisional order set aside; Bar Council of India directed to reconsider the revision petition and pass a fresh reasoned order within six months. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Does an order of affirmation require reasons?
Yes. While an order of affirmation may not require as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, it must contain reasons, however brief, to demonstrate that the authority applied its mind to the matter. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What is the legal requirement for a conclusion in a revisional order?
A conclusion must be supported by reasons (the why), at least in brief, to stand legally; otherwise, the order is seen as lacking the necessary application of mind. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. This civil appeal is directed against the order dated March 30, 2024 passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) dismissing the appellant’s revision petition, whereby he questioned dismissal of his complaint (alleging professional misconduct committed by the respondent-advocates) by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) vide order dated October 5, 2015.
3. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned revisional order.
4. The said order of the BCI notes the facts giving rise to the revision and the arguments of the parties, spread over six pages. On the seventh page, the noting is completed in four lines whereafter the BCI spares merely six lines for dismissing the revision without recording any reason at all. In fact, the ipse dixit of the BCI that the impugned order of the BCD suffers from no infirmity and hence, does not warrant interference, is recorded.
5. Law is well settled that an order of affirmation may not require elaborate reasons as required in the case of an order of reversal but it does not mean that such order of affirmation need not contain any reason at all. Whether or not there was application of mind can only be disclosed by reason, howsoever briefly alluded to. If any authority is required, one may profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshtriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney (2009) 4 SCC 240).
6. What follows from the above is that the ‘what’, i.e., the conclusion, must have the ‘why’, i.e., the reasons (at least in brief), to stand on, which is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of affirmation. On this short ground, we set aside the revisional order of the BCI.
7. BCI is directed to re-consider the revision petition and pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, within six months from date.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
9. We clarify, no opinion is expressed on merits and all points are left open for being agitated by the parties before the BCI.
10.There shall be no order for costs.
