Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
S. Diwakar – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chairman – Respondent
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 relating to its resolution No.309 of 2012 dated 15.12.12 and to quash the same with its referring of proceeding before the disciplinary committee in D.C.C.No.49 of 2012 dated 11.02.2013 which as stated in the affidavit on coming out in the back drop of the instigated initiative is therefore arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, erroneous, error apparent on face record, abuse of power, acting in excess, motivated and invalid so far as I am concerned.]
The Resolution No.309 of 2012 dated 15.12.2012 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, if such opinion has been formed and issued by an incompetent Authority having no jurisdiction or tainted with the allegations of malafides. In
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 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 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.
The court considered the futility of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate due to age and inactive practice, leading to the quashing of the notice of hearing.
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.
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 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.
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 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
