SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2723

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.N. Phanindra, Aditya Narayan
For the Respondents: G. Nataraj, Harsha Swaroop P.

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.

Headnote:(A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35 - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Writ for prohibition against Bar Council complaint - Petitioner acted as external member of Internal Complaints Committee without prior representation of the company - No misconduct found under the Advocates Act, as no client advocate relationship existed - Complaint quashed on grounds of lack of locus standi and absence of substantive evidence. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14)

(B) Professional Misconduct - Definition varies contextually; deliberate wrongdoing and violation of established norms required - Mere dissatisfaction with decisions does not establish misconduct. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner was appointed as an external member to a company’s Internal Complaints Committee addressing a sexual harassment complaint against the respondent. Following termination of the respondent's employment, he filed a complaint with the Bar Council alleging misconduct by the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the lack of a client-advocate relationship and the context of the complaint indicated an absence of professional misconduct.

Issues: The main issue revolved around whether the petitioner’s role as an external member constituted professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: No misconduct was found as the role of the petitioner did not equate to a professional relationship, nor did it violate professional standards.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, complaint quashed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top