Legal professionals have a duty to maintain the credibility and reputation of the legal profession, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken in cases of serious misconduct.

1. Legal profession is not a trade or business. It is a noble profession. Members belonging to this profession have not to encourage dishonesty and corruption but have to strive to secure justice to their clients if it is legally possible. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves. There is heavy responsibility on those on whom duty has been vested under the Advocates Act, 1961 to take disciplinary action when the credibility and reputation of the profession comes under a clout on account of acts of omission and commission by any member of the profession.

2. In this appeal while issuing notice this Court had stayed till further orders the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. We admit the appeal and heard learned Counsel for the parties. On facts, there is not much dispute. The facts material for the decision of this appeal briefly are as follows:

"A complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent Advocate, before Bar Council of Rajasthan was referred to Disciplinary Committee constituted by the State Bar Council. In substance, the complaint was that respondent while appearing as a Counsel in a suit pending in a civil court wrote a letter to Mahant Rajgiri his client inter alia stating that his another client has told him that the concerned judge accepts bribe and he has obtained several favourable orders from him in his favour, if he can influence the judge through some other gentleman, then it is different thing, otherwise he should send to him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- so that through the said client the suit is got decided in his (Mahant Rajgiri) favour. The letter further stated that if Mahant can personally win over the judge on his side then there is no need to spend money. This letter is not disputed. In reply to complaint, respondent pleaded that the services of the Presiding Judge were terminated on account of illegal gratification and he had followed the norms of professional ethics and brought these facts to the knowledge of his client to protect his interest and the money was not sent by his client to him. Under these circumstances it was urged that the respondent had not committed any professional misconduct."

3. The State Bar Council noticing that the respondent had admitted the contents of the letter came to the conclusion that it constitutes misconduct. In the order of the State Bar Council stated that keeping in view the interest of the litigating public and the legal profession such a practice whenever found has to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Holding respondent guilty of misconduct under S.35 of the Advocates Act, State Bar Council suspended him from practice for a period of two years with effect from 15th June, 1997.

4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order before the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India. By order dated 31st July 1999, the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India comprising of three members enhanced the punishment and directed that the name of the respondent be struck off from the roll of Advocates, thus debarring him permanently from the practice. The concluding paragraph of the order dated 31st July, 1999 reads thus:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also heard the appellant as to the punishment since the Advocate has considerable standing in the profession. He has served as Advocate for fifty years and it was not expected of him to indulge in such practice of corrupting the judiciary or offering bribe to the judge and he admittedly demanded Rs. 10,000/- from his client and he orally stated that subsequently order was passed in his client's favour. This is enough to make him totally unfit to be a lawyer by writing the letter in question. We cannot impose any lesser punishment than debarring him permanently from the practice. His name should be struck off from the roll of Advocates maintained by the