Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
S. Freeda Gnanamani - Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 8768 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 18-06-2024
JUDICIAL REVIEW - BAR COUNCIL RESOLUTION - The court held that a prima facie opinion formed by the Bar Council does not warrant judicial review under Article 226 unless it is shown to be issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with malafides. The court emphasized that disputed facts must be resolved by the appropriate forum, and the High Court cannot adjudicate on merits in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged Resolution No.280 of 2014 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, seeking to quash it through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Bar Council's formation of a prima facie opinion to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee was not a ground for judicial review. It reiterated that the High Court cannot adjudicate on disputed facts and that such matters should be resolved by the competent authority.
Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review over a prima facie opinion formed by the Bar Council and whether the resolution can be quashed under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a prima facie opinion by the Bar Council does not provide grounds for writ proceedings unless there are allegations of incompetence or malafides. Disputed facts must be adjudicated by the appropriate forum.
Result: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was allowed to submit their defense and documents to the Bar Council for further proceedings.
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with its resolution No.280/2014 dated 07.11.2014 and quash the same.]
The Resolution No.280 of 2014 dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is under challenged in the present writ proceedings.
2. The resolution passed by the Bar Council forming a prima facie opinion would not provide a cause for institution of writ proceedings in a routine manner. Such prima facie opinion can be challenged on limited grounds, more specifically, such opinion has been formed and issued by an incompetent Authority having no jurisdiction or tainted with the allegations of malafides. In all other circumstances, the prima facie opinion formed by the Bar Council would result in referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee, who in turn has to conduct an enquiry by affording opportunity to all the parties. Therefore, forming a prima facie opinion or arriving at a conclusion that there is a reason to believe to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee would not be a ground to adjudicate the matter on merits by the High Court in exercise of powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is a settled legal principle that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings. Such facts are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences available on record by the competent Authority/Forum. In the present case, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has formed an opinion that there is a reason to believe to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Committee will issue notice of hearing and the parties have to appear and establish their respective cases in the manner known to law and in accordance with the Rules in force.
4. Mr. R. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that based on the Court order, the petitioner Lawyer has handed over the Government Poramboke land to the Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality.
5. All these factors can be placed before the Bar Council for consideration. Since the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into such allegations and counter allegations, it is for the petitioner to submit the documents, statement of defense etc., before the Bar Council for passing appropriate orders. This court cannot express any opinion with reference to the allegations set out. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to submit statement of defense along with the documents, if any, to the Bar Council for all further actions.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
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 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.
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.
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 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 competent authority's notice of hearing in disciplinary proceedings is not subject to challenge in a writ petition unless there are clear grounds of incompetence or mala fides.
The necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
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.
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
