Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
B.Chandran - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary/Disciplinary Committee-I, The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and ors. – Respondents
WP.No.9394 of 2022 and WMP.No.9141 of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024
JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - The court emphasized that it cannot adjudicate disputed facts in disciplinary complaints against lawyers, which are to be resolved by the Bar Council. The court highlighted the importance of due process and jurisdiction, concluding that the petitioner could defend his case before the Bar Council of India, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings of Complaint No.142 of 2020 initiated against him by the 3rd respondent before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the complaint, as such matters are to be determined by the Bar Council based on evidence and due process.
Issues: Whether the High Court can quash the proceedings of a disciplinary complaint against a lawyer initiated by the Bar Council.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review does not extend to resolving disputed facts in disciplinary proceedings, which are the purview of the Bar Council, and that the complaint was validly initiated.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to defend himself 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 Certiorari, to call for the records of 1st respondent, quash its proceeding in complaint No.142 of 2020 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
The writ petition has been instituted to quash the proceedings in Complaint No.142 of 2020. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, who is a practising lawyer. The complaint has been numbered as Complaint No.142 of 2020. The petitioner raised several grounds on merits. The High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot adjudicate such disputed facts, which all are to be adjudicated by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu based on the documents and evidences and by following due process. Quashing of the complaint cannot be made in a routine manner, unless the actions are initiated by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction. In the present case, the complaint has been entertained and numbered as Complaint No.142 of 2020. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu transferred the complaint to the Bar Council of India. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to defend his case before the Bar Council of India.
2. With the above observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
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 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 decision to drop a complaint is valid and that aggrieved parties have the right to seek further recourse through established legal channels.
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 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.
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 necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
The necessity to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before seeking judicial review in disciplinary matters under the Advocates Act, 1961.
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.
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.
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
