Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Mrs.Aarti - Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of India, Represented by its Secretary, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi and ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.471 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.491 of 2024
Decided On : 25-06-2024
Writ Petition - Bar Council Proceedings - The court addressed the validity of removal proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of India, emphasizing the unique provision under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961, which mandates appeals to the Supreme Court for aggrieved parties, thereby influencing the decision to dispose of the writ petition and allowing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Bar Council of India's removal proceedings dated 23.04.2019, which set aside a decision by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should have approached the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961, as the Act provides a specific appellate remedy for such cases.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Bar Council's removal proceedings was maintainable or if the petitioner should have appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 provides a unique and explicit remedy for appeals against decisions of the Bar Council, which must be followed instead of seeking relief through a writ petition.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961.
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 position, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 in the manner known to law.
3. With this liberty, this Writ Petition stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
