Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Radhika Rajendran W/o.Rajendran Cherooli – Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of India and ors. – Respondents
WP.No.8481 of 2023
Decided On : 11-06-2024
MANDAMUS - DISPOSAL OF COMPLAINT - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of a complaint. The court highlighted the transfer of the case to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of The Advocates Act, indicating that the petitioner could pursue the matter there, thus influencing the decision to dispose of the writ petition without further orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of a complaint pending before them.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the complaint had been transferred to the Bar Council of India, allowing the petitioner to pursue the matter there.
Issues: Whether the court should issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the disposal of the complaint pending before the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India, the petitioner had the liberty to pursue the complaint there, negating the need for a Mandamus.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to dispose of petitioner's complaint dated 30.10.2021 in No. 372 of 2021 in D.C.C.No. 128/2022 pending before Respondent No.1, within a time period fixed by this Honorable Court and pass such further or other suitable orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit the petitioner is the complainant. The case of the petitioner has been transferred to the Bar Council of India on 16.11.2022 under Section 36B of The Advocates Act. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the complaint before the Bar Council of India.
2. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
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 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.
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 transfer of complaints under Section 36B of The Advocates Act to the Bar Council of India is a procedural safeguard that allows for proper adjudication of grievances against advocates.
The court reaffirmed that statutory remedies provided under the Advocates Act must be exhausted before seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The necessity to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before seeking judicial review in disciplinary matters under the Advocates Act, 1961.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
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.
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.
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
