SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
C.B. Suryanaraynan – Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – Respondent
W.P. No. 1904 of 2022
Decided On : 18-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Manokaran.
For the Respondents: C.K. Chandrasekkar, V. Srimathi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Disciplinary Committee must follow the procedures set forth in the Advocates Act and Bar Council Rules, and cannot entertain discharge applications that undermine the inquiry process.

Headnote:

STATUTORY POWER - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - The court emphasized that the statutory powers conferred on the Disciplinary Committee must be exercised in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council Rules. It found that the Committee exceeded its authority by entertaining a discharge application, which is not permitted under the rules, leading to a prejudicial outcome for the complainant. The court mandated a fresh inquiry to ensure proper adherence to the established procedures.

Fact of the Case:

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry referred a complaint against certain advocates to the Disciplinary Committee for inquiry. During the inquiry, the advocates filed a discharge application, which the Committee entertained and allowed, discharging them from the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Disciplinary Committee acted beyond its powers by allowing the discharge application, which is not supported by the rules governing disciplinary proceedings. This action prejudiced the complainant's rights.

Issues: Whether the Disciplinary Committee had the authority to entertain and allow a discharge application during ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Disciplinary Committee must adhere strictly to the procedures outlined in the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, which do not permit the dropping of inquiries based on withdrawal or compromise by the complainant.

Result: The court quashed the order of the Disciplinary Committee and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry to be conducted by a different committee, ensuring compliance with the proper procedures.

ORDER :

1. The law contemplates the statutory power conferred on the Authorities must be exercised in the manner as contemplated under the Act and the Rules itself.

2. In the present case, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry entertained complaint and after forming prima facie opinion, referred the matter under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to the Disciplinary Committee for conducting an enquiry.

3. The Disciplinary Committee was in the process of conducting enquiry. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, respondents 2 and 3 filed discharge application, which was entertained and the Disciplinary Committee heard the discharge application and allowed the same by discharging the respondents 2 and 3 from the disciplinary proceedings.

4. Part VII disciplinary proceedings and review Chapter-I contemplates the complaint against the Advocates and the procedures to be followed by the Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. The Rules are framed under Section 49(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

5. Rule 11 (3) of the Bar Council of India Rules stipulates that “no disciplinary enquiry shall be dropped solely by reason of its having been withdrawn, settled or otherwise compromised, or that the complainant does not want to proceed with the enquiry.”

6. When the Rules contemplate the procedures for dealing with the complaint by the Disciplinary Committee, the Committee is expected to follow the same and entertaining discharge application from the delinquent Advocate, is neither contemplated nor maintainable before the Disciplinary Committee. Thus by entertaining discharge application, the Disciplinary Committee has exceeded its powers as contemplated under the Rules. The excess exercise of powers resulted in erroneous decision, which caused prejudice to the complainant.

7. In the present case, in the absence of complete adjudication, the right of the complainant is prejudiced. Thus the Disciplinary Committee is bound to conduct enquiry proceedings in the manner as contemplated under the Rules cited supra and by affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned.

8. In view of the above reasons, we are inclined to consider the present writ petition. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 14.08.2021 passed in DCC No. 121 of 2020 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for conducting fresh enquiry by referring the complaint to any other Disciplinary Committee for conducting enquiry by following the procedures as contemplated. The said exercise is directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible.

9. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top