IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
S.Manikandan - Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Represented by its Secretary and ors – Respondents
WP.No.5495 of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024
JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - The court examined the authority of the Bar Council to entertain complaints against an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court. It highlighted that the Advocate Commissioner, as an officer of the court, must be subject to the court's jurisdiction for any grievances regarding their conduct, thus affirming the Bar Council's decision to reject the complaint as it lacked jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged Resolution No.388 of 2021 by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which rejected a complaint against the 2nd respondent, an Advocate Commissioner, for allegedly acting illegally by breaking into a temple and handing over keys without court permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Bar Council lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the Advocate Commissioner, as any grievances should be addressed to the court that appointed the Commissioner. The court emphasized that the Advocate Commissioner is an officer of the court and any misconduct should be reported to the court.
Issues: Whether the Bar Council has the authority to investigate complaints against an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court, and whether the actions of the Advocate Commissioner constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council cannot entertain complaints regarding the conduct of an Advocate Commissioner, as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the court that appointed the Commissioner. The appropriate course of action for the petitioner is to approach the court concerned.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, affirming the Bar Council's decision to reject the complaint.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the Resolution No.388 of 2021 dated 30.07.2021, on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable and further direct the first respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent herein based on the Complaint No.332 of 2020 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case.
The Resolution No.388 of 2021 dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.N.Baaskaran would submit that the 2nd respondent was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner by the learned VII Assistant City Civil Court in O.S.No.2261 of 2019. The 2nd respondent acted illegally, break open the temple and entered into the premises and handed over the key to the plaintiff in the suit. Pertinently, no such permission has been granted by the Civil Court in the Commissioner warrant. Thus, the 2nd respondent committed an illegality.
2. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit that the 2nd respondent performed his duties as an Advocate Commissioner in a Civil suit and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved from and out of any action of the Advocate Commissioner, he has to make a complaint to the Court concerned and the Bar Council cannot conduct an enquiry.
3. The Advocate Commissioner has been appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. The Advocate Commissioner is an officer of the Court. Even in case, an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court exceeded his/her limits, the objections if any by the parties to the suit has to be filed before the Court concerned for appropriate action. Contrarily, Bar Council cannot entertain such complaints related to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a Civil suit, unless such actions are directed to be initiated by the Court concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court concerned in the pending suit. The Bar Council has rightly rejected the complaint submitted by the petitioner for initiation of action for his conduct.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.
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 necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
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.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
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 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 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 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.
Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 establishes a mandatory appellate process to the Supreme Court for aggrieved parties in Bar Council proceedings, which must be adhered to instead of seeking wri....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.