Back
Supreme Court Warns Advocate , Modifies BCI's One-Year Suspension Order
A Warning, Not a Suspension: The Apex Court's Final Word
The has substituted a one-year suspension of advocate with a formal warning, modifying an order passed by the (BCI) in a case stemming from an alleged physical assault inside a Delhi courtroom. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar ruled on that while a lawyer's indecent behaviour in court premises can attract under the , the disciplinary quantum must account for the fact that the criminal aspects of the incident had already been reported to the police.
A 2005 Confrontation That Spawned Two Parallel Proceedings
The dispute traces back to 2005, when S.L. Chaudhary was a litigant before the , presided over by Ms. Deepa Sharma. Chaudhary's application was dismissed, and he alleged that Gautam — who appeared for the opposite party, M/s Recon Copier System Private Limited — grabbed him by the collar, assaulted him, abused him, and threatened to kill him inside the court premises. Chaudhary further claimed Gautam coerced him into withdrawing a separate complaint with threats that he would be "removed from this world."
Chaudhary lodged police complaints on and , and filed a complaint with the on . That complaint was initially dismissed on on the ground that no could arise since Gautam was the opposing counsel rather than Chaudhary's own lawyer. The dismissal was later recalled on after a review petition, and the BCI eventually suspended Gautam from practice for one year on .
Denied a Hearing, But No Remand
Challenging the suspension before the Supreme Court under
, Gautam's counsel argued that he had been denied a proper opportunity to be heard. The BCI had refused his
on
and proceeded with the matter the same day. The Supreme Court acknowledged the procedural lapse —
"It appears that appellant was not heard properly by the
when his prayer for adjournment was rejected on 07.07.2012"
— yet declined to remit the case back, observing that nearly 21 years had elapsed since the complaint was first filed.
Decent Conduct Is Non-Negotiable
The Court nonetheless affirmed the broader principle governing lawyer behaviour. It noted that since Gautam was never Chaudhary's counsel, there was no allegation of relating to the court proceedings themselves; the complaint concerned only the incident within the court premises. The criminal arising from the alleged assault and threats, the Court observed, was already in the hands of the police.
"Thus, the
part of the incident which happened in the Court premises, was already informed to the Police and insofar as this part is concerned, the
or the
had no role to play,"
the bench stated.
Underscoring the standards expected of the legal profession, the Court added:
"Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken
of by the concerned State Bar Council or the
, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone."
The Final Order
Finding that the disciplinary proceedings were concerned solely with Gautam's conduct inside the court premises — and not with his professional work in the litigation — the Supreme Court modified the BCI's suspension order into a warning. Gautam was directed to
"always behave properly in the Court premises while dealing with the lawyer on the opposite side, his own client; as also the party on the opposite side as well."
The appeal was disposed of in these terms, with the on the suspension having already prevented the penalty from taking effect.
