The Karnataka High Court has quashed the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) resolution that placed Senior Advocate S Basavaraj under interim suspension. The court ruled that the very basis of the BCI's action had ceased to exist after the original complainant, Surya Mukundraj, withdrew his revision petition.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who delivered the judgment, emphasized that the BCI’s resolution could not stand legally once the revision petition that led to the suspension was withdrawn.
“It needs to be noticed that BCI has passed the impugned resolution on the revision petition and the R2 (Complainant-Surya Mukundraj) today wants to withdraw the revision petition filed before the BCI and before this court as well. Therefore, the foundation on which the BCI has passed the resolution has itself today tumbled down,” the court observed.
The court further noted that continuing proceedings without any pending petition would amount to acting outside the legal framework.
Rejecting the BCI's claim that it held suo-motu powers to proceed with the matter, the High Court held that such action would go against the law.
The case began when Surya Mukundraj filed a complaint on November 30, 2022, before the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC). The complaint related to the functioning of Daksha Legal, a legal knowledge-sharing platform managed by the petitioner’s son. After considering the reply submitted by Basavaraj, the KSBC rejected the complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
"Strangely enough the counsel for R1 is wanting to pursue the matter without there being anything pending before it. In the light of there being nothing before the BCI, acceding to the submission of the first respondent BCI would be directing something contrary to law. In that light there being nothing before the BCI today with the R2 himself withdrawing the revision petition. The petition deserves to succeed. Petition is allowed,” Justice Nagaprasanna ruled."“In that light the BCI cannot now contend that it wants to continue the proceedings notwithstanding there being nothing before it as the revision petitioner himself has withdrawn the revision petition and is before this court. In that light nothing further survives for BCI to further consider,” the judge added.
Despite this, the complainant moved a revision petition before the BCI a year later, under Section 48A of the same Act. The BCI, ignoring the unexplained delay, passed a resolution on September 3, 2024, placing Basavaraj under interim suspension for six months.
Basavaraj then approached the High Court, which issued an interim stay on September 10, 2024, halting the BCI’s resolution. Later, on March 20, 2025, the complainant submitted a memo before the BCI, expressing intent to withdraw the revision petition. However, the BCI argued that the memo had not yet reached it and sought to continue with the proceedings.
The court confirmed that the memo had been filed both before the BCI and with the High Court, and was signed by the complainant.
“The withdrawal memo filed before BCI is appended and the signature of the second respondent is found on the memo...The memo is taken note of and the proceedings before BCI initiated by R2 has stood withdrawn,” the court stated.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Alleged Irregularities in Government Jobs for Land Scam
With the foundation of the suspension order no longer valid, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the BCI resolution.
Senior Advocate Murthy D. Naik represented the petitioner in the matter titled S Basavaraj vs Bar Council of India & Another (Case No. WP 24962/2024).
