The Delhi High Court has clarified that a person challenging an order passed by a State Bar Council cannot automatically file an appeal before the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act if the order was not issued by a disciplinary committee.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a petition filed by a man who had accused two advocates of professional misconduct over an unfiled review petition. The Court held that the Bar Council of India was correct in asking the petitioner to pursue a revision remedy instead.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner, Mr. C. Asok Kumar, claimed that two advocates had agreed to prepare and file a review petition on behalf of his daughter for a professional fee of ₹55,000. According to him, despite receiving documents and substantial fees, the advocates allegedly failed to provide the final draft for filing within the limitation period.
He later approached the Bar Council of Delhi under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging professional misconduct. During the proceedings, the advocates reportedly stated that both the fees and documents had already been returned.
The Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint on April 25, 2024, observing that no prima facie case of professional misconduct was made out once the documents and fees had been returned.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner approached the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act. However, the Bar Council of India informed him through a letter dated January 9, 2026 that an appeal under Section 37 was not maintainable against an order passed by the State Bar Council itself. Instead, he was advised to file a revision petition under Section 48-A of the Act.
The petitioner then challenged this communication before the Delhi High Court.
The High Court examined the statutory framework of the Advocates Act and drew a distinction between appellate and revisional powers.
Justice Kaurav observed, “Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically provides a statutory right of appeal only against an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council under Section 35.”
The Court further noted that Section 48-A gives the Bar Council of India revisional powers in cases where no statutory appeal is available.
According to the Court, the order challenged by the petitioner had been passed by the Bar Council of Delhi and not by a disciplinary committee constituted under Section 35. Therefore, the Bar Council of India was justified in stating that a revision petition - and not an appeal - was the proper legal remedy.
Disposing of the petition, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no illegality or perversity” in the communication issued by the Bar Council of India. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act.
All rights and contentions of the parties were left open.
Case Details
Case Title: Mr. C. Asok Kumar v. Bar Council of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6796/2026
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: May 18, 2026
