$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on : 15.04.2025 + W.P.(C) 4425/2025 CHAND MEHRA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, CGSC alongwith Mr. Kamaldeep, GP for UoI.

Mr. Preet Pal Singh and Ms.

Tanupreet Kaur, Advocates for BCI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

The matter is taken up today as 14.04.2025 was declared a holiday on account of birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

1. The present petition assails the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter ‘the impugned order’) whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Bar Council of Delhi was dismissed.

2. The impugned order came to be passed in the background of a complaint dated 19.04.2023 bearing Complaint No. 109/2023 filed by the petitioner against respondent nos. 3-5 before the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) alleging professional misconduct on the part of the said respondents who are lawyers engaged by the petitioner’s adversary/opposite party in respect of certain legal proceedings initiated against the petitioner including proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a civil Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4425/2025 Page 1 of 13 suit for recovery of monies (hereinafter ‘the legal proceedings in question’). 3. It is the contention of the petitioner, who appears in person, that the aforesaid proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on completely false and specious grounds without any due diligence being conducted by the respondent nos. 3-5. He submits that on this account, action should be taken against the said respondents for filing and prosecuting the said cases without conducting adequate due diligence.

4. He further submits that despite the correct factual position being apprised to the petitioner’s adversary/opposite party and his lawyers (respondent nos. 3-5) in the legal proceedings in question, respondent nos.

3-5 persisted in pursuing false and frivolous litigation against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner also alleges that the respondent nos. 3-5 harassed him by making unreasonable demands/seeking to coerce the petitioner into settling the matter.

6. On this basis, a complaint dated 19.04.2023 came to be filed by the petitioner against the respondent nos. 3-5 before the Bar Council of Delhi seeking that an enquiry be conducted against the respondent nos. 3-5 and that they be held accountable for misconduct. Vide order dated 06.10.2023 issued by the Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi, the said complaint was dismissed. The said order, inter alia, reads as under:-

“The council has gone through the entire complaint and the documents attached. Firstly, there is no professional relationship between the complainant and the respondents and the respondents are advocates of the opposite party. The allegation that the respondent advocates should have ascertained the facts with due diligence and should have filed the facts only after verification, cannot be considered, because an advocate has to believe on the facts provided by the client and it is not the duty of the advocate to verify those facts. If those facts are incorrect or false, they can be proved in the court of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4425/2025 Page 2 of 13 law as the matter of the complaint is pending before the court and proper evidence may be adduced in the court to prove that the facts ascertained by the complainant are false and incorrect. It is for the court to decide the same. Therefore, at this stage, there is no misconduct made out against the respondents, hence the complaint is dismissed.”

7. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition dated 13.12.2023 bearing Revision Petition no. 27/2024 came to be filed by the petitioner before the Bar Council of India (BCI) under Rule 48A of the Bar Council of India Rules. During t