Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
N.Sanjeevkumar - Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary and ors. – Respondents
WP.No.32518 of 2023 and WMP.No.32122 of 2023
Decided On : 11-06-2024
Writ Petition - Disciplinary Proceedings - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerning the quashing of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on a complaint. The court highlighted the transfer of the complaint to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, allowing the parties to pursue their case there, which influenced the decision to dispose of the writ petition without costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash disciplinary proceedings initiated against them based on a complaint. The complaint was subsequently transferred to the Bar Council of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint had been properly transferred to the Bar Council of India, allowing the parties to pursue their case there, thus rendering the writ petition unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed and whether the matter should be pursued before the Bar Council of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, the appropriate forum for addressing the complaint was established, leading to the conclusion that the writ petition should be disposed of.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the parties to pursue their case before the Bar Council of India.
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 of the respondents 1 and 2, including the 1st respondent's impugned Confl.No.1856/2023 dated 02.05.2023, on the basis of the 3rd respondent's complaint dated 13.03.2023, vide complaint No.146/2023 as against the petitioner and quash the same, consequently drop the pending Disciplinary Proceedings in D.C.C.No.168/2023 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit that the complaint in the case of the petitioner has already been transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act on 13.02.2024. Thus, the parties are at liberty to pursue their case before the Bar Council of India in the manner known to law.
2. With the above liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
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.
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 necessity to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before seeking judicial review in disciplinary matters under the Advocates Act, 1961.
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.
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 necessity to exhaust statutory appeal remedies under the Advocates Act before seeking judicial review is a fundamental principle in legal proceedings concerning disciplinary actions.
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.
A writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy when a complaint has been dismissed for lack of a prima facie case; the petitioner may seek recourse through a Revision Petition under ....
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
