The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a stern message to Bar Councils across the country, warning against casually forwarding baseless misconduct complaints against practicing lawyers. In a strongly worded judgment, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta quashed two separate disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), calling them "frivolous" and "cryptic"
Background
The first case involved advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula, who was dragged into disciplinary proceedings over allegations connected to decades-old property disputes in Mumbai. The complaint, filed by Khimji Devji Parmar, accused Narula of hiding crucial facts and benefiting from fraudulent consent terms in litigation involving the firm M/s Volga Enterprises.
Parmar, who inherited his father's stake in the firm, alleged that his family was deprived of rightful property interests because Narula and others suppressed signatures and misled the Bombay High Court during a consent decree in 2005.
In a second matter, advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri was accused by complainant Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad of abetting perjury. Bhakad, who once worked as a lecturer before turning to law, claimed Shastri became liable merely by identifying a deponent in an affidavit.
Both complaints were taken up by the BCMG and referred to its Disciplinary Committee (DC), prompting the advocates to challenge them in the Bombay High Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the State Bar Council had acted mechanically without recording reasons or applying its mind. Justice Mehta, delivering the judgment, remarked:
"Recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee."
In Narula's case, the Court found that he had not even represented the complainant or his predecessor. He had merely identified the representative of M/s Unique Construction in consent terms still valid to this day.
"By mere identification of the plaintiff, the respondent-advocate cannot be held liable to face proceedings under Section 35," the bench clarified.
Turning to Shastri's case, the Court observed that simply identifying a deponent in an affidavit does not make an advocate responsible for its contents. The judges called the allegations "wholly absurd and untenable".
The bench was particularly critical of the Bar Council’s "cryptic" referral orders, which contained no discussion of the allegations but still threatened to tarnish professional reputations.
Decision
Bringing the curtain down on both controversies, the Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary complaints in their entirety. The justices also imposed ₹50,000 costs each - one on the Bar Council in Narula's case, and another shared between the Bar Council and complainant Bhakad in Shastri's case. The amount is to be deposited with the Bombay High Court registry and handed over to the two advocates.
Concluding the ruling, the bench cautioned that disciplinary mechanisms exist to preserve dignity of the legal profession, not to harass lawyers at the behest of disgruntled opponents.
"Malicious prosecution of advocates at the instance of rival litigants cannot be permitted," the judgment underlined.
With this, the apex court disposed of all pending applications linked to the matters.
Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.