Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
Karthik Ranganathan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by its Secretary (Law), New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Writ of Declaration has been instituted to declare Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as unconstitutional and consequently to direct the first respondent to give effect to the suggestions given by the second respondent and the Law Commission of India in its 266th Law Commission Report dated 23.03.2017 to suitably amend Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2. The writ petitioner is practicing Advocate and contend that the Disciplinary Committee constituted under Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is arbitrary and not in consonance with the established principles. In the event of allowing the Disciplinary Committee to conduct enquiry, there is no possibility of adherence of rules of natural justice as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of judgments.
3. The petitioner may have no issues with reference to the appointment of Bar Council Members. However, he adds by stating that one Judicial Member from Retired Judges must also be included in the Disciplinary Committee for the purpose of conducting enquiry by the Bar Council. On receipt of any complaint or suo motu proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the composition of the Commi
The court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and upheld the existing framework for the Disciplinary Committee's composition.
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.
The Bar Council's authority to refer complaints for inquiry under Section 35 of the Advocates Act is affirmed, emphasizing the need for proper inquiry into allegations of misconduct.
The disciplinary committee's action timeline can be extended to exclude periods during which it is judicially prohibited from considering a complaint.
The court affirmed that the Bar Council's prima facie opinion is not subject to routine judicial review, emphasizing the need for proper inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee.
The Bar Council must form a 'reason to believe' before referring a case for disciplinary action to ensure valid complaints against advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of statutory immunity under Section 48 of the Advocates Act and the doctrine of merger, which resulted in the plaintiff's lack of c....
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
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
