S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
Aarti – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of India, Represented by its Secretary, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call further records relating to the first respondent's order dated 23.04.2019 Removal Proceedings No.7 of 2018 in T.N.E.C.R. No.19 of 2017 and quash the same and may be permanently remove the third respondent from the Bar council enrolment No.1307 of 2014 as against the Section 5 of Rule of Legal Education Rule 2008 w.e.f. 14.09.2008.
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the validity of the removal proceedings dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Bar Council of India.
2. The Bar Council of India passed final orders setting aside the decision taken by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Since the subject proceedings were dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee, the aggrieved person has to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961. An appeal expressly contemplated under Section 38 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Section 38 is an unique provision in the Advocates' Act, 1961, and no such provision has been contemplated in any other enactments. That being the legal
Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 establishes a mandatory appellate process to the Supreme Court for aggrieved parties in Bar Council proceedings, which must be adhered to instead of seeking wri....
The court affirmed that the Bar Council's decision to drop a complaint is valid and that aggrieved parties have the right to seek further recourse through established legal channels.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
The eligibility for enrollment as an advocate under the Advocates Act is contingent upon compliance with specific disqualifications, particularly concerning concurrent employment in government servic....
The necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
The transfer of a disciplinary complaint to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of The Advocates Act allows the complainant to pursue their case in the appropriate legal forum.
The necessity to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before seeking judicial review in disciplinary matters under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Bar Council of India has the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding the enrolment of advocates, and the court will not intervene in disputed factual matters pending before it.
The transfer of a complaint to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act establishes the appropriate jurisdiction for disciplinary matters involving advocates.
Judicial review by the High Court does not extend to adjudicating the merits of disciplinary complaints against lawyers, which must be handled by the Bar Council.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.