IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Jayna Kothari D/o Pankaj L. Kothari – Appellant
Versus
Manish Kumar – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19619 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the complaint. (Para 2) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, is at the doors of this Court seeking the following prayers:
“A. Issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the Respondent No.2 from proceeding with complaint bearing No. 109/2019 (now numbered as D.C.E. No. 66/2022) filed by the Respondent No.1 herein against the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 Karnataka State Bar Council, produced herein as ANNEXURE-H.
B. Issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the complaint bearing No. 109 / 2019 now numbered as D.C.E. No. 66/2022, filed by the Respondent No.1 herein against the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 Karnataka State Bar Council, produced herein as ANNEXURE-H.
C. Issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notice dated 17.7.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 KSBC, in complaint bearing No. 109/2019 now numbered as D.C.E. No. 66/2022 produced herein as ANNEXURE-R.
D. Grant any other relief/s which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate practicing in the Courts of the country and is said to have put in more than 25 years of practice. The petitioner, based on her expertise on the issue of tackling sexual harassment of women at work place, is said to have been requested by Zoomcar India Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’ for short), to be its General Counsel to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted by the Company. As a General Counsel the petitioner was given a role of an external member. The petitioner accepted the request to be a part of the Internal Complaints Committee as an external member. It is the averment in the petition that being the external member was in her personal and individual capacity, and not as a Senior Advocate. It is the further averment that the petitioner has no previous association of any kind with the Company and had never represented the Company in the capacity of an Advocate at any time in her career. The petitioner is said to have been a part of the Committee, as an external member, without any kind of payment or even honorarium.
2.2. On 23-05-2019, a complaint of sexual harassment in the Company is made by a female employee against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was an employee of the Company. In the complaint certain allegations were made against the 1st respondent which would touch upon the ingredients of sexual harassment. Following the receipt of the complaint, the Committee sent a notice to the 1st respondent through an electronic mail directing him to submit his response to the complaint within 10 days, as required under the statute. The 1st respondent replies to the said mail refuting the allegations and is said to have communicated plethora of mails later.
2.3. Not being satisfied with the reply, the Committee opined to conduct an enquiry into the complaint in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and the corresponding Rules. The enquiry is said to have taken place only on one particular day i.e., 31-7-2019, when both the parties were called in and statements were recorded. The parties were also called separately and the enquiry of both the parties was completed on the same day, including hearing of their submissions. During the enquiry, it is the averment again that both the parties did not ask to cross- examine each other. Thus, the parties participate in the said enquiry.
2.4. A day after the said enquiry i.e., on 01-08-2019, the 1st respondent shoots a mail to the petitioner raising objections against some other members of the Committee who are the employees of the Company. The Committee, afte






An external member of an Internal Complaints Committee does not constitute a client-advocate relationship; therefore, allegations of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act are unfounded.
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Bar Council can initiate disciplinary action based on a reasonable belief of wrongdoing or a formal complaint without infringing on an advocate's rights until a final order is made.
(1) Professional misconduct by Advocate – Ordinarily, existence of a jural relationship between complainant and Advocate concerned is a precondition for invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the....
The court reaffirmed that the authority to question the representation of a society lies within civil proceedings, and recurrent petitions that reiterate previously dismissed issues constitute misuse....
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.