Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 743
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Ajay Vijh – Appellant
Versus
Indian Banks Association & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. ……of 2026 Arising Out of SLP (C) no. ….of 2026 @ Diary No. 10787/2024
Decided On : 07-07-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv. Ms. Neha Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sahay, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Aman Gahlot, Adv. Ms. Isha Gaur, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Azal Aekram, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR
Writ jurisdiction applies to private bodies exercising public functions. Caution lists for fraud cannot be used to penalize professional negligence; matters of professional misconduct fall under the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of statutory self-regulatory professional bodies to ensure independence and accountability.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12, 19(1)(g), 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Held, writ jurisdiction is not limited to bodies falling under the definition of ‘State’; it extends to any body performing public functions - Judicial review is permissible when an action possess a public law character and affects fundamental rights, such as the right to practise a profession. (Paras 12-19)
(B) Professional Regulation - Disciplinary jurisdiction - Allegations of professional negligence or misconduct against legal practitioners fall exclusively within the domain of statutory professional regulatory bodies - Parallel adjudicatory mechanisms that black-list or stigmatize practitioners for alleged negligence violate the principles of self-regulation and professional autonomy - Professional independence is inextricably linked to the rule of law and judicial independence. (Paras 31-36)
(C) Regulatory Framework - Caution Lists - Meant strictly for scenarios involving fraud, dishonesty, or criminal misconduct affecting the systemic integrity of the sector - Extrapolation of such mechanisms to address mere professional negligence or erroneous professional advice is legally unsustainable and lacks constitutional justification. (Paras 25-28)
Facts of the case:
An advocate was removed from a professional panel and included in a sector-wide caution list maintained by an industry association due to alleged negligence in providing a title verification report, which was claimed to have exposed a financial institution to loss. The individual challenged this inclusion, arguing it tarnished their professional reputation and impacted their future livelihood without following due process. The request for relief was initially declined on grounds of non-maintainability against the association.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable because the association’s action, while administrative, had a significant public law character affecting the fundamental rights of the practitioner. The caution list was designed for fraud prevention, not as a tool for adjudicating civil negligence. Consequently, the court set aside the inclusion of the name, emphasizing that assertions of professional incompetence must be resolved through the established statutory disciplinary framework, which ensures peer review and fairness.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an industry body not functioning within the strict definition of ‘State’. (ii) Whether a caution list designed for fraud prevention can be utilized to address allegations of professional negligence. (iii) Whether professional disciplinary matters are reserved for statutory regulatory bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: Professional regulatory autonomy is essential for maintaining judicial independence and the rule of law. External, non-statutory bodies cannot unilaterally impose professional sanctions or stigmatize practitioners for negligence. Any such disciplinary action must be conducted by the appropriate statutory regulatory authority, providing a transparent, fair, and structured mechanism for inquiry and adjudication.
Result: Appeal allowed; the inclusion of the practitioner's name in the caution list is declared illegal, and a direction for its immediate removal is issued.
Key Points: - Writ jurisdiction extends to any body performing public functions, not merely to ‘State’ within Article 12 (!) (!) . - Inclusion of an advocate’s name in a caution list for alleged negligence impacts fundamental right to practise profession and is subject to judicial review (!) (!) . - Allegations of professional misconduct or negligence against advocates fall within the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961 (!) (!) . - Caution lists are meant strictly for fraud, dishonesty, or criminal misconduct; they cannot be extrapolated to address mere professional negligence (!) (!) . - The court set aside the inclusion of the appellant’s name in the caution list and directed its removal (!) . - The court directed the Bar Council of India to undertake a performance audit of its disciplinary mechanisms (!) (!) . - The court emphasized the need for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and proposed establishing a National Legal Academy (NLA) (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and a direction for removal of the name from the caution list was issued (!) . - The judgment was listed for further directions on CLE and NLA institutionalization on 31.08.2026 (!) .
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a non-State body performing public functions?
Whether a caution list designed for fraud prevention can be used to address professional negligence?
Whether professional misconduct by an advocate falls exclusively within the disciplinary jurisdiction of statutory regulatory bodies?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context regarding the wrongful inclusion of an advocate in the iba caution list. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. writ jurisdiction under article 226 is maintainable against private bodies performing public functions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. caution lists cannot target professional negligence; they are reserved for substantiated fraud. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. exclusive jurisdiction over advocate misconduct resides with state bar councils under the advocates act. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. regulatory bodies must conduct performance audits to ensure disciplinary accountability and institutional efficiency. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 6. institutionalizing continuing legal education and establishing a national legal academy is essential for judicial improvement. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 7. formal court order setting aside the erroneous administrative act and directing future compliance. (Para 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
Table of Contents
| I. | The Dispute and Its Consideration |
| II. | Factual Background |
| III. | Issues for Consideration |
| IV. | Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 |
| V. | Scope and object of Caution List as per RBI Guidelines |
| VI. | Professional Independence, Self-Regulation and BCI being the Disciplinary Body |
| VII. | Duty of BCI to undertake performance audit of its disciplinary jurisdiction to ensure accountability. |
| VIII. | Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for Lawyers: A Necessity for Strengthening Justice Delivery |
| IX. | Conclusions. |
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.1[The present Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12074 of 2023]
I. The Dispute and Its Consideration.
2. The appellant, an advocate by profession, served as panel counsel for Canara Bank at the relevant time. Pursuant to a legal opinion rendered by him in the year 2015, the Bank considered it necessary, not only to remove his name from its panel of advocates but also to include his name in what is called the “Caution List”, maintained by the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) as per guidelines in circulars issued by RBI. The writ petition instituted by the appellant challenging the aforesaid action of the Bank and the IBA came to be dismissed on the ground that the IBA is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
2.1 Having regard to the significance of the issues involving autonomy, self-regulation and accountability of the legal profession, we permitted the learned counsels appearing for respective parties, as well as Mr. Maninder Singh, Amicus Curiae to address us on the maintainability of the writ petition, as also the merits of the case. For the reasons to follow, we have held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable.
2.2 On merits, we have declared that the Caution List maintained by the IBA is intended to operate only in cases involving fraud, dishonesty, criminality, or other serious misconduct affecting the banking system. It was never designed to address cases resting merely on alleged negligence or errors of professional judgment. Consequently, we have held that inclusion of appellant’s name in the Caution List solely on account of negligence is unsustainable in law.
2.3 The issues that have arisen for consideration compelled us to examine certain foundational principles, namely, independence of legal profession and the concomitant freedom of self-regulation. These principles are well recognised and have, in fact, secured statutory recognition under the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Act’). Matters relating to professional conduct or misconduct of advocates fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regulatory bodies constituted under the Act, namely the Bar Council of India and
