05.10.2021

Sujoy Paul,J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails

the Notification No.1918/21 dated 19/7/2021 whereby the petitioner,

an Advocate is suspended by the communication signed by the

Secretary of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh.

2.

Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the

provision about conduct of Advocate is taken care of in Chapter V of

Advocates Act, 1961 (for short “Act”). Sec. 35 prescribes the

procedure pursuant to which an Advocate can be punished for

misconduct. By placing heavy reliance on Sec.35 of the said Act, it is

urged that if Bar Council has any reason to believe that any Advocate

3

on its role is guilty of professional or other misconduct, it is required

to refer the matter for disposal to the disciplinary committee. It is

only the disciplinary committee which can take a decision after

putting the Advocate concerned to notice. In the instant case, it is

urged that; (i) the decision was never taken by the Disciplinary

Committee, (ii) the decision making process is faulty because no show

cause notice was served on the present petitioner, (iii) sub-section (2)

and (3) of Sec.35 have not been followed. Thus, the suspension order

is null and void and passed by incompetent authority and without

following the “due process”.

3.

Learned counsel for Bar Council submits that the conduct of

petitioner was very serious and, therefore, in order to maintain order

in the activities of advocates, a decision was taken to place the

petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has an efficacious,

alternative remedy u/S.37 of the said Act to prefer an appeal. In view

of this remedy available, this petition may not be entertained.

Counsel for respondent No.2 also placed reliance on Sec.6 of the

Advocates Act to contend that the provision is wide enough pursuant

to which petitioner could have been placed under suspension. Thus,

no fault can be found in the order of suspension.

4.

Shri Kamal Gupta, for respondent No.4 appeared in person and

submits that during Covid 19 pandemic the Adhoc Committee of

District Bar Association has left no stone unturned to see that Covid

19 protocol and restrictions are followed. The Advocates working

under the leadership of Adhoc Committee have taken pains to take

care of all Covid 19 restrictions so that system can work smoothly.

Petitioner created serious ruckus during that period and this conduct

of petitioner was in due course reported to the Bar Council. Action

was taken by respondent No.4 also against the petitioner. In view of

this conduct of petitioner, no interference may be made and petitioner

may be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal u/s.37 of the Act. Shri

4

Gupta, in addition urged that the petitioner’s conduct was in utter

violation of a General Body decision taken by the Adhoc Committee

and, therefore, the action may not be interfered with by this Court.

5.

The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated

above.

6.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7.

Before dealing with rival contentions, we deem it proper to

mention the relevant Sections on which learned counsel for parties

during the course of their arguments placed heavy reliance. Relevant

clauses of Sec.6 read as under:-

“6. Functions of State Bar Councils.―(1) The

functions of a State Bar Council shall be―

(c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against

advocates on its roll;

(d) to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates

on its roll;

(h) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under

this Act; (i) to do all other things necessary for discharging the

aforesaid functions.”

(emphasis supplied)

8.

Relevant portion of Section 35 reads thus:-

“35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.―(1)

Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar

Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its rol