Point of Law : It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed. [Para 15]

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 26-09-2022 passed by the Bar Council of India in Revision Petition No.45 of 2022 directing suspension of the petitioner from practicing law in any Court in the country during the pendency of the revision petition.

2. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Sri A.R. Goutham, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Karnataka and claims to have put in 28 years of practice. He further claims that he was a former Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council and is a sitting Member of the said Council. One Sri Basavaraju Murugesh Jarali another practicing Advocate registers a complaint before the Karnataka State Bar Council alleging certain acts of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner making reference to certain legal proceedings. The legal proceedings were concerning O.S.No.14 of 2008 and Regular Appeal No.334 of 2019. The allegation against the petitioner in the said complaint was that a criminal case had been registered against one Basavaraddi Venkateddi Chulaki and other family members for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 302 of the IPC, who had engaged the services of the petitioner as their legal counsel. On registration of the said crime, the accused therein were in custody from the date of arrest till the date of their acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.39 of 2007, which comes about on 28.03.2008. After the acquittal and release of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki, claims to have come to know that the petitioner had created certain General Power of Attorney and sold the property without the knowledge of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki.

4. This resulted in institution of a suit in O.S.No.14 of 2008 seeking declaration of the sale deed being null and void and not binding on Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. The suit was decreed. This was challenged by the purchaser of the said property in R.A.No.135 of 2012. The Appellate Court remitted the matter back to the trial Court to implead necessary parties and then pass appropriate orders. While doing so, the present petitioner was impleaded into O.S.No.14 of 2008. The allegations against him were that he had misused the signatures of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. The suit again came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein on 26-04-2019 and certain observations were made against the petitioner.

5. The moment the decree comes to be passed, a complaint comes to be registered before the 2nd respondent/Karnataka State Bar Council on 28-09-2021 by the complainant – respondent No.3. Explanation was sought by the 2nd respondent pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his explanation refuting all those allegations made in the complaint and also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that he had challenged the judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.14 of 2008 and R.A.No.334 of 2019 before this Court in R.S.A.No.100383 of 2021 and this Court had admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the judgments and decrees of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The 2nd respondent noticing this fact, closed the proceedings against the petitioner. On such closure of the proceedings, the complainant approaches the 1st respondent/Bar Council of India invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The 1st respondent appears to have sent a video conference link, who failed to appear and without hearing the petitioner, on 26.09.2022 it passed an order that the petitioner is barred from practicing in any court of law during the pendency of the revision petition. This order da