A writ petition challenging a disciplinary order under the Advocates Act is not maintainable before the High Court if the order has attained finality through an appellate process before the Bar Council of India, as Section 38 mandates an appeal to the Supreme Court.

WRIT PETITION NO.39418 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY SET-ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2023(BEARING NO.67/2022) PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.III, THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, BENGALURU I.E., RESPONDENT NO.2 PASSED IN DCE NO.67/2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE - E) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“Wherefore, under the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners above named prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ deemed appropriate by set-aside impugned order dated 17.06.2023 (bearing No.67/2022) passed by the Disciplinary Committee No.III, The Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru i.e., Respondent No.2 passed in DCE No.67/2022 (vide ANNEXURE- E);

b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ deemed appropriate by set-aside Judgment dated 09.06.2025, passed by the Disciplinary Committee, The Bar Council of India, New Delhi i.e., Respondent No.1 passed in DC Appeal No.42/2023 (vide ANNEXURE - F);

c) a writ of mandamus or any other writ deemed appropriate directing the Respondent No.2 to re-admit the Petitioner in the State Roll of Advocates and permit the Petitioner to practice in the court of law; and

d) Grant such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a practicing advocate having enrolled as an advocate in the year 1998. The respondent No.3 had filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the same was referred to the disciplinary committee No.III i.e. respondent No.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the complaint was given on 16.11.2021, the Bar Council has passed an order on 17.06.2023 i.e. after 1 year 7 months. Thereafter, the petitioner has carried this matter to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of India has affirmed the order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council vide order is dated 17.06.2023 and the Disciplinary Committee No.III of the Bar Council of India had passed an order on 09.06.2025 affirming the order of the State Disciplinary Committee.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961. Basing on the above provision, it is submitted that they have to conclude the proceedings within 1 year, or else, the matter shall be transferred to the Bar Council of India, whereas in this case, an order is passed after 1 year 7 months. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council has no jurisdiction and when the matter was carried to the Bar Council of India, without looking at the scope of Section 36B , the Bar Council of India has affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. Hence, it is submitted that in the light of Section 36B , where an order is passed without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that as per Section 38 of the Advocates Act against an order passed by the Bar Council of India, the appeal lies to the Supreme Court. As such, the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable.

5. In response to that, learned counsel appearing for th