The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging disciplinary proceedings against an advocate, holding that an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in appeal under the Advocates Act can be challenged before the Supreme Court.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on September 14, 2026, in P Balasubramaniyan v. Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta, observing that the petitioner had adopted a route that was not legally available to challenge the BCI’s disciplinary decision.
Background
The matter arose from disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. On July 6, 2018, the Madras High Court directed its Registrar General to lodge a complaint against him before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee, after hearing the petitioner, found him guilty of professional misconduct on May 14, 2019, and imposed a three-year suspension from practice. In another disciplinary matter, he was also ordered to be removed from the State Bar Council’s roll, with both punishments directed to run concurrently.
The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action before the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961. On January 30, 2022, the BCI affirmed the earlier order and modified the punishment in the other disciplinary case from permanent removal to five years’ suspension from practice.
The petitioner subsequently approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. That complaint was rejected.
Appearing in person, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary action was connected with his membership of a Scheduled Caste. He alleged that the proceedings attracted provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and various provisions of the IPC.
He sought setting aside of the earlier order, punishment against the respondent and compensation.
The respondent opposed the petition, submitting that the disciplinary action concerned professional misconduct and had no connection with caste. It was also argued that Section 38 of the Advocates Act provided the appropriate remedy against the BCI’s appellate order.
After examining the record, the High Court held that the order of the BCI’s disciplinary committee, passed in appeal under Section 37, could be challenged only before the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.
The Court observed:
“The petitioner, instead of availing of that remedy, has sought to assail the disciplinary orders collaterally, and through a petition seeking criminal action.”
The Court further noted that its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is supervisory and is meant to correct a patent jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity. It found no such defect in the order under challenge.
The High Court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the order passed by the lower court. It also held that the reliefs sought by the petitioner, including attempts to unsettle the BCI’s disciplinary order or seek directions for criminal action, could not be granted in the present proceedings.
Accordingly, Justice dismissed the criminal revision petition
Case Details:
Case Title: P Balasubramaniyan v. Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 613/2022
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: September 14, 2026
