Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Mr.T.Veera Puthiran – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – Respondent
WP.No.9143 of 2023
Decided on : 13-06-2024
MANDAMUS - ADVOCATE DISCIPLINE - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a mandamus to compel the Bar Council to act on a complaint against an advocate who was previously prohibited from practicing. The court emphasized the Bar Council's duty to conduct an inquiry into the complaint and allowed the advocate to defend himself. The court also noted that the petitioner could approach the police regarding the advocate's unauthorized practice, reinforcing the legal framework for disciplinary actions against advocates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Bar Council to consider a complaint against the 3rd respondent, an advocate who had been prohibited from practicing since December 13, 2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Bar Council must proceed with the inquiry into the complaint against the 3rd respondent and that the advocate has the right to defend himself in the proceedings. The court also indicated that the petitioner could seek police intervention regarding the advocate's unauthorized practice.
Issues: Whether the Bar Council is obligated to act on the complaint against the advocate and what recourse is available to the petitioner regarding the advocate's continued practice despite the prohibitory order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council has a duty to investigate complaints against advocates and that the prohibition order must be enforced. The court also recognized the petitioner's right to seek police action against the advocate for violating the prohibitory order.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the Bar Council to conduct an inquiry and for the petitioner to approach the police if necessary.
ORDER :
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 and 2 respondents to consider the representation and to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint dated 09.07.2022 within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
With reference to the complaint given by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent-Advocate, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that an prohibitory order dated 13.12.2017 has been passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu prohibiting the 3rd respondent from practicing as an Advocate. The complaint is pending. That being the factum, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to participate in the enquiry proceedings and defend his case in the manner known to law. The Bar Council shall proceed with the enquiry and initiate all appropriate further actions.
2. With reference to the complaint that the 3rd respondent is maintaining name board, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional police, who in turn on receipt of such complaint shall initiate appropriate action based on the prohibitory order made by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
3. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
The Bar Council is mandated to investigate complaints against advocates and enforce prohibitory orders to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
Full disclosure of criminal involvement is essential for enrollment as an Advocate, and failure to disclose such information can lead to dismissal of the application.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
A writ of Mandamus is not necessary when the complainant has the option to pursue the matter before a different authority, as per the provisions of the Advocates Act.
The misuse of the advocate emblem by an individual not duly enrolled as an advocate constitutes a violation of legal provisions, warranting investigation and action by relevant authorities.
The pendency of a criminal case against an applicant serves as a bar to enrollment as an advocate before the Bar Council.
The necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry does not have jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes as they do not involve professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Bar Council does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints against an Advocate Commissioner; such complaints must be addressed to the court that appointed the Commissioner.
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
