The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council has the authority to suspend an Advocate from practicing law pending disposal of disciplinary proceedings, in order to maintain the dignity and decorum of the legal profession.

1. Whether the State Bar Council is vested with the power to suspend an Advocate on its rolls from practising the profession of law pending disposal of suo-motu disciplinary proceedings taken by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is the core issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition at the instance of a lawyer from Coimbatore, who was suspended, as an interim measure for passing an illegal arbitration award without authority.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on the Rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 20.12.2002 (Enrollment No. 2115 of 2002). The petitioner is a member of Coimbatore Bar. The petitioner is stated to be a busy legal practitioner in Civil, Criminal and other branches of law.

3. While so, the petitioner received a notice dated 15.10.2013 from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act 1961 should not be taken against him for professional misconduct. The show cause notice was followed by an interim order of suspension dated 17.10.2013 pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.

4. According to the petitioner, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bar Council’) in its resolution and notices indicated that he illegally acted as an arbitrator and passed an award dated 16.10.2008. It was the contention of the petitioner that the award was passed only by Mr. R. Vijay Anand, Advocate and as such, Bar Council was not correct in taking action against him.

5. The Bar Council in its counter affidavit contended that several complaints were received from Coimbatore with regard to the functioning of certain Advocates as Arbitral Tribunals, calling people to appear without any authority, passing awards, and executing such awards by various means. The Bar Council took suo-motu proceedings against five advocates including the petitioner. Since the Bar Council is of the view that public interest would suffer in case those Advocates are allowed to practice pending disposal of disciplinary proceedings, they were suspended. Accordingly Bar Council justified the impugned order.

Submissions:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the compliant preferred by the Coimbatore Bar Association and the award dated 16.10.2008 contain the name of Sri. R. Vijay Anand, Advocate. The petitioner is R.D. Vijay Anand and he is a very busy legal practitioner and a very successful defence lawyer. The petitioner used to send atleast five sessions cases every week to his counter part at Madras High Court. Such a famous lawyer would not indulge in holding illegal arbitration proceedings. The learned counsel further contended that the Bar Council has no right to suspend a lawyer from practice pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council by producing the file, the award and acknowledgement card which contain the signature of the petitioner submitted that the signature in the acknowledgement card and the signature in the award are one and the same. The Enrollment papers also contain the very same signature. Therefore it is clear that R. Vijay Anand is none other then the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Bar Council possess the inherent power to suspend the Advocates pending disposal of disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis:

8. The petitioner challenges the interim order of suspension primarily on the ground that the Bar Council has no power under the Advocates Act to suspend a legal practitioner pending disposal of proceedings for misconduct. The other contention relates to the identity of the person involved in the misconduct.

9. The Coimbatore Bar Association preferred a complaint dated 27.8.2013 to the Bar Council stating that Thiru P.R. Shanmgam and eight others including the petitioner are conducting illegal arbitral proceedings. The Bar Council on a careful consideration of the complaint resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings agains