The Bar Council lacks the authority to impose interim suspension on an Advocate pending disciplinary proceedings, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates adherence to due process and principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Factual Background :-

The petitioner is an Advocate. He claims that he has been practising before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and before the Courts and Tribunals in the District of Tirunelveli for over 13 years.

2.A group of Advocates in Tirunelveli District formed a whatsapp group titled

The petitioner alleges, on 03.05.2024, an Advocate by name, A.Siva Subramanian posted a highly derogatory message against a particular religion and had also posted a message seeped in hatred. The petitioner, being a part of that whatsapp group, made a request calling upon the group members not to post messages which hurts the sentiment of others.

3.On the very same day, a group of lawyers, claiming to be the juniors of one Mr.Rajeshwaran, came over to his residence and abused the petitioner and his family members in unparliamentary language. They also held out that if the petitioner were to post similar messages, they would ruin the lives of the petitioner and his family members.

4.Fearing that the threat might be carried out into action, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Perumalpuram Police Station. After enquiry, the police registered an FIR in Crime No.250 of 2024, on 22.05.2024. Simultaneously, the members of Tirunelveli Advocates Association preferred another complaint to the Palayamkottai Police Station. The petitioner states that on account of the pressure brought on the police by the Advocates, an FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.281 of 2024, on 06.05.2024.

5.The cause of action for the present writ petition arose on account of a complaint in Crime No.281 of 2024, being forwarded to the 1^st respondent by one Barathimurugan, the Vice President of the District Advocates’ Association. In the said complaint, it was stated that the writ petitioner had abused the President of the Tirunelveli District Advocates Association at Palayamkottai in a derogatory manner and had circulated the audio recordings of the same in the whatsapp official group and had also threatened the President with dire consequences.

6.Acting on the complaint filed by Barathimurugan, the 1^st respondent placed the same before the General Council of the Bar Council to take appropriate action. The General Council taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner had been accused of offences under Sections 153 , 294(b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code , decided to take firm and severe action. Accordingly, it passed a resolution on 05.07.2024 in Resolution No.675 of 2024, prohibiting the writ petitioner from practising as an Advocate in any Court of law, Tribunal, etc., till the disposal of the criminal case.

7.It further added that the writ petitioner is prohibited from practising pending disposal of the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was called upon to surrender his enrolment certificate and identity card issued by the Bar Council, within three days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

8.This Court entertained the writ petition on 23.10.2024 and granted an interim stay of the impugned proceeding.

Counsel and their submissions:-

9.We heard the party-in-person and Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for the respondent.

10.The party-in-person urged that the impugned order is vague and does not corroboratively satisfy any allegations against him. Furthermore, the impugned order is one passed