The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'reasons to believe' for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an advocate under Section 35 of The Advocates Act, 1961, and the determination of 'misconduct' or 'professional misconduct' based on judicial interpretations.

1. The petitioner, an octogenarian and a member of the legal fraternity, has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash the disciplinary proceedings under The Advocates Act, 1961 pending against him with the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:-One Mr.V.G.Jayaraman, who claims to have title and possession in respect of the property bearing D.No.54-57, at Vembuli Subedar Street, Alandur, Chennai, approached the petitioner professionally seeking his legal opinion regarding the title claimed by him. Based on the deeds of settlement dated 07.04.1976 and 20.04.1976, the judgements and decrees of the civil courts in C.S.No.216 of 1978 dated 17.08.1983 and O.S.A.No.20 of 1985 dated 23.06.1992, the petitioner gave a report to his client -Mr.V.G.Jayaraman thereby opining that Mr.V.G.Jayaraman had a clear and marketable title to the property in question. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent , who is carrying on business under the name and style of Sankara Builders appears to have entered into a sale agreement with Mr.V.G.Jayaraman for developing the said property. It also appears that Mr.V.G.Jayaraman had appointed him as his power of attorney and based on the same, the 3rd respondent had built six flats over the property and sold away four flats to the respondents 4 to 7. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent appears to have entered into another agreement with Mr.V.G.Jayaraman regarding rest of the areas to have yet another project. But, he was advised by somebody that the title claimed by Mr.V.G.Jayaraman was defective. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is stated to have stopped further construction activities.

3. According to the respondents 3 to 7, they entered into the above transactions based on the legal opinion offered by the petitioner to Mr.V.G.Jayaraman. Now, according to them, they could not go ahead with the above transaction and thus, they have suffered huge loss. With these allegations, the respondents 3 to 7 have made a complaint to the 1st respondent / the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry. The Bar Council in turn called upon the comments of the petitioner which the petitioner promptly did. Thereafter, the Bar Council passed the following order:-

"After careful consideration of the Complaint and the comments, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has reason to believe that the respondent is guilty of professional or other misconduct and it has therefore referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for disposal."

In pursuance of the said order, the 2nd respondent / Disciplinary Committee has issued a notice to the petitioner for his appearance and for enquiry by its proceedings in D.C.C.No.25 of 1999. Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner is now before this Court with this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the records carefully. Despite service of notice and their names have been printed in the cause list, the respondents 3 to 5 and 7 have not chosen to appear either in person or through a counsel.

5. The profession of an Advocate is a dignified profession. Undoubtedly, it is noble. Their role in the justice delivery cannot be underestimated. Their participation in the nation building cannot go unnoticed. They play a vital role in the preservation of the independence of the judiciary which is one of the basic structures of the constitution. The Advocates are expected to conduct themselves in a dignified manner without losing even a very small amount of reputation and the confidence which the public, more particularly, their clients repose in them. Their conduct, be it professional or otherwise, should be above board. Whenever there is a complaint regarding the conduct of an Advocate alleging that such conduct is a misconduct, either professional or otherwise, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has to a