Advocate Disciplinary Case: Supreme Court Rules on Bar Council’s Power in Misconduct Proceedings

The case of Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil vs. Bar Council of Gujarat & Another is a significant ruling that clarifies the powers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in handling transferred disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the BCI could remand a case back to the State Bar Council after it had been transferred due to delay in resolution.

The dispute arose when the appellant, Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Gujarat based on complaints of misconduct. The case was transferred to the BCI under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, after the State Bar Council failed to resolve it within the stipulated one-year period. However, instead of adjudicating the complaint, the BCI sent it back to the State Bar Council for resolution within a specific time frame. The Supreme Court had to decide whether such an action by the BCI was legally valid.

Background of the Case

The appellant, a practicing advocate, was accused of financial misappropriation and denial of access to records while serving as the President of the Gandhinagar Bar Association in 2008. A fellow advocate, P.D. Kanani, lodged a complaint against him, alleging that the appellant had misused his position and engaged in financial misconduct. The complaint was filed with the Bar Council of Gujarat, which initiated disciplinary proceedings.

Over time, the case was subjected to multiple transfers:

The Bar Council of Gujarat initially referred the case to its Disciplinary Committee III.
Later, the case was reassigned to Disciplinary Committee I.
Subsequently, it was transferred to Disciplinary Committee XII and then to Disciplinary Committee IX.

Due to the prolonged delays, and in accordance with Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, the matter was automatically transferred to the Bar Council of India in 2011. The BCI registered the case as BCI Transfer Case No. 197/2011.

However, in 2015, the BCI chose to remand the case back to the State Bar Council, instructing it to conclude the proceedings within one year. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the BCI had no power to remand a case once it had been transferred to it by operation of law.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was required to address the following questions:

Whether the Bar Council of India, upon receiving a transferred case under Section 36B(1), could remand it back to the State Bar Council instead of adjudicating it.
Whether the BCI’s decision was legally valid under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant should be quashed due to excessive delays.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil)

The petitioner’s counsel, Anup Kumar, presented the following arguments:

Section 36B(1) mandates that the BCI must resolve a case once it has been transferred. It does not give the BCI the authority to send the case back to the State Bar Council.
The prolonged disciplinary proceedings caused undue hardship to the appellant and violated the principle of expeditious justice.
The complaint was politically motivated and should have been dismissed due to the excessive delay in its resolution.

Arguments by the Respondents (Bar Council of Gujarat & Bar Council of India)

The Bar Council of Gujarat, represented by D.N. Ray, argued that:

The Bar Council of India has plenary powers to handle disciplinary cases and may remand them if necessary.
The transfer of the case to the BCI did not strip the State Bar Council of its ability to conclude the proceedings.
The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India acted in good faith to ensure the case was handled at the appropriate level.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled in favor of the appellant and quashed the BCI’s order to remand the case. The key observations were:

Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, does not empower the BCI to remand a transferred case. Once a case is transferred due to delay, the BCI is required to decide it.
The legislative intent behind Section 36B(1) is to ensure expeditious disposal of disciplinary cases. Allowing remand would defeat this purpose.
The BCI’s action of sending the case back to the State Bar Council was without legal justification and contrary to the statutory mandate.
Given the prolonged delays and the nature of the complaint, the Supreme Court ruled that continuing disciplinary proceedings against the appellant would be unjust. It quashed the proceedings.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The Supreme Court emphasized:

“Once a disciplinary proceeding stands transferred to the Bar Council of India by operation of law, the BCI is under a statutory obligation to dispose of the case. It cannot remand the matter back to the State Bar Council.”

On procedural fairness, the Court observed:

“Prolonged delays in disciplinary proceedings defeat the very purpose of professional accountability. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling clarifies that the Bar Council of India must resolve disciplinary cases once they are transferred under Section 36B(1).
It ensures that lawyers facing disciplinary action are not subjected to indefinite delays due to procedural inefficiencies.
The decision sets a precedent for handling advocate misconduct cases in a fair and timely manner.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil vs. Bar Council of Gujarat reaffirms the principles of due process and expeditious justice. By quashing the disciplinary proceedings and ruling that the Bar Council of India cannot remand transferred cases, the judgment protects advocates from undue hardship caused by prolonged legal battles. The ruling ensures that disciplinary actions are handled efficiently, fairly, and within the statutory framework of the Advocates Act.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ajitsinh Arjunsinh G vs Bar Council of Gujar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-04-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category