The court established that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against advocates, ensuring that they are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves before any punitive action is taken.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 05.11.2023 and consequent Notification dated 23.11.2023 passed by the first respondent-Karnataka State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council' for short) suspending the petitioner from practising in any Courts of the country.

2. Heard Sri H.Manjunath, petitioner-in-person, learned counsel Sri. Nataraj .G appearing for first respondent/Council and learned counsel Sri. Mahesh Arkalgud appearing for second respondent/complainant.

3. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, who claims to have set-up his practice and is practising in several Courts of the country. The issue relates to a complaint being filed by second respondent against certain alleged activities of the petitioner, which would touch upon sexual harassment of second respondent, by the petitioner. Several instances of messages being sent or whatsapp messages being sent to the complainant, form the fulcrum of the complaint. The complaint was registered on 02.09.2023 by the second respondent. The complaint was numbered as C-164/2023. The petitioner was issued a notice on 21.09.2023. After receipt of notice from the hands of the Council, the petitioner by his representation requested 10 to 14 days time to submit his explanation. The communication was sent to the Council on 05.10.2023. The Council appears to have waited for 30 days from 05.10.2023 and then passed an order which is impugned in the subject petition. The order reads as follows:

"Hence, the following order;

The complaint filed by the complainant against the Respondent Advocate is referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council and considering the gravity of the circumstances, the enrolment of the Karnataka State Bar Council bearing No. KAR/1260/2014 of the Respondent Advocate, is hereby suspended with immediate effect. IT IS RESOLVED TO SUSPEND the Respondent pending enquiry and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED TO REFER the same to Disciplinary Committee No. 1 for enquiry." (Emphasis added)

The order results in a Notification being issued by the Council suspending the petitioner from practising, pending enquiry in complaint in C-164/2023. It is this order and the Notification that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The petitioner appearing in person would vehemently contend that all that is sought at the hands of the Council was time for 15 days. No doubt there has been delay on his part for 15 more days. The Council could not have suspended the practice of the petitioner without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to state his defence. He would submit that if the complaint averments which forms the contents of the order of suspension are looked into, it would result in serious consequences and therefore, he ought to have been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence is his submission.

5. Learned counsel representing the Council, on the contrary would submit that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity, which he has not availed of. Therefore, no fault could have been found with the proceedings initiated or the order and the Notification so impugned in the subject petition. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the Council to seek dismissal of the petition projecting the conduct of the petitioner being unworthy of any indulgence at the hands of this Court.

7. The petitioner in person would join the issue, to contend that the complaint itself is not maintainable as, if it is an allegation of sexual harassment against a co-advocate, the matter ought to have been placed before the Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POSH Act' for short). Therefore, he would submit that he had to be afforded opportunity to submit his defence in the ca