The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the authority to entertain an appeal against an interim order of the State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee while an inquiry is still in progress. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri.
"When the Special Committee has not completed its probe, nor has it made final recommendations to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, and no punishment has been imposed, the BCI lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or pass any order," the court stated.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations against Sandeep Chaudhary, the President of the Karnal District Bar Association. A complaint was filed, accusing him of financial mismanagement and allocating chambers to ineligible advocates. In response, a Special Committee was constituted to investigate the matter.
Read Also:- NET Qualification Mandatory for Assistant Professor and Extension Lecturer: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Special Committee issued an interim order barring Chaudhary from interfering in chamber construction matters and preventing him from contesting elections for any post at the District Bar Association (DBA), Karnal, for three years.
However, Chaudhary challenged this order before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, which permitted him to contest the elections. This prompted the petitioner, Jagmal Singh Jatain, to approach the High Court, arguing that the BCI had no jurisdiction over the appeal.
Legal Standpoint and High Court’s Observations
The court analyzed Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which states that any person aggrieved by an order of a State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee can appeal to the BCI within 60 days. However, the court clarified that this provision applies only when the State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee has passed a final order imposing a penalty or disciplinary action.
Read Also:- Punjab Girls Forced to Drop Out Due to Distant Schools: High Court Demands Action from State Government
"Since the Special Committee’s recommendations had not led to a final order imposing punishment, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council had not exercised its authority under Section 35. Consequently, the BCI had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or modify the interim order," the court emphasized.
The High Court noted that Chaudhary had failed to comply with previous court directions and did not produce relevant records until compelled. The Special Committee had found evidence suggesting financial irregularities and possible misappropriation of funds. In light of these findings, the court upheld the Special Committee’s recommendations.
Read Also:- Punjab Girls Forced to Drop Out Due to Distant Schools: High Court Demands Action from State Government
"The Special Committee’s role was to ensure transparency and fairness. Until it concludes its inquiry and the State Bar Council imposes a punishment, the BCI cannot assume jurisdiction over the matter," the judgment clarified.
Furthermore, the High Court criticized the Returning Officer for allowing Chaudhary to contest the elections despite the interim order. It stated that any confusion on the matter should have been clarified through appropriate legal channels rather than disregarding the committee’s decision.
Title: JAGMAL SINGH JATAIN v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate,
Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, Ms. Anu Chaudhary, Advocate and Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for respondent No.2.
