Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
S. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Resolution passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in Resolution No. 718 of 2018 dated 28.09.2018, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The second respondent-Advocate filed complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in Complaint No. 57 of 2018. In the said complaint, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry formed prima facie opinion and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for conducting an enquiry. The formation of prima facie opinion is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan for the petitioners, would contend that the complainant/second respondent herself is an Advocate. The complaint is about filing of vakalat in the Courts. Thus it would not constitute misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 and therefore, the Resolution itself is liable to be set aside.
4. To substantiate the said claim, the learned Senior Counsel relied on certain factual allegations raised by the second respondent against the petitioners. However, the complaint filed by the second respondent reveals about certain allegations and it is not for the High Court
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 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 court considered the futility of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate due to age and inactive practice, leading to the quashing of the notice of hearing.
A prima facie opinion by the Bar Council is not subject to judicial review unless it is shown to be issued by an incompetent authority or is tainted with malafides.
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 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 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.
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.
The court quashed disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer, finding the complaint to be frivolous and lacking merit, with no professional relationship between the complainant and the petitioner.
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
