The court upheld the Bar Council's authority to suspend an advocate's practice during disciplinary proceedings based on serious criminal allegations, emphasizing the need for maintaining professional integrity.

ORDER :

[S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The order of suspension dated 09.07.2024, suspending the practise of the petitioner as a lawyer by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, is sought to be assailed in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he is a practising advocate of the High Court of Madras, with enrolment No.269 of 2009. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu issued the impugned Prohibitory Order vide Resolution No.683 of 2024, dated 05.07.2024. This was based on the complaint received from the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu stating that criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.334 of 2024 under Sections 294(b), 353, 307 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959, @ 294(b), 353, 307, 506(ii) and 34 of IPC read with Section 25(1A), 25(1AA), 27(2) of Arms Act, 1959 on the file of the Mamallapuram Police Station.

3. The complaint reveals that the petitioner allegedly supplied firearm and ammunition to a notorious history-sheeter rowdy named Sathya @ Sirkazhi Sathya, who attempted to fire at a Police Personnel during a vehicle check-up on East Coast Road (ECR) on 28.06.2024. In connection with this criminal case, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

4. The complaint was placed before the General Council of the Bar Council for taking appropriate action. After elaborate discussion, the General Council considered the nature of the criminal case registered against the petitioner relating to the allegations of commission of heinous offences. In order to maintain professional standards and protect the nobility of the profession, the General Council passed a resolution dated 05.07.2024, prohibiting the writ petitioner from practising as an advocate in any Court of Law, Tribunal, etc., either in his name or any assumed name, until the disposal of the criminal case.

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a legal practitioner, approximately practising legal profession for about 15 years. He has not been involved in the commission of any offence. A false criminal case has been registered against him, and he is in no way connected to the allegations. As a lawyer, he has represented numerous notorious history-sheeters and political parties. Therefore, the complaint itself appears to be motivated. Based on the complaint filed by the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, the Bar Council ought not to have initiated action without verifying the petitioner's credentials. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would urge this Court that there is no basis for the complaint and the criminal case itself was registered after a lapse of about 11 years. Therefore, the said case cannot form any basis for issuing the impugned Prohibitory Order.

7. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry relying on the report submitted by the Bar Council would submit that approximately 7 criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. In some of the criminal cases, the allegations are heinous in nature. The complaint was received from the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu. The Council considered the complaint elaborately and after deliberations took a decision to issue the Prohibitory Order, which is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The inquiry is in progress and the Bar Council has to conduct a detailed inquiry into the allegations and take a final decision. The petitioner has to participate and cooperate for the completion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

8. Section 35 of the Advocates Act , 1961 enumerates Punishment of Advocates for Misconduct. Sub Section (1) denotes, “Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe tha