New Delhi: The Supreme Court has modified an order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) suspending an advocate from practice for one year over alleged misconduct in court premises, and instead issued him a warning to maintain proper conduct while dealing with litigants and lawyers.
Partly allowing the appeal, a bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that while a lawyer’s behaviour within court premises can amount to professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, disciplinary proceedings should be confined to that aspect, particularly where the alleged criminal conduct had already been reported to the police.
“Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing,” observed the Justice Mishra-led Bench.
“Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone.”
The apex court modified the BCI’s July 21, 2012 order suspending advocate Sudhendu Prakash Gautam from practice for one year and instead warned him “that he shall always behave properly in the Court premises while dealing with the lawyer on the opposite side, his own client; as also the party on the opposite side as well”.
The case arose from a complaint filed by S.L. Chaudhary before the Bar Council of Delhi in August 2005. The complainant alleged that after his application was dismissed by a Labour Court in Delhi, the advocate caught him by the collar, assaulted him, abused him and threatened to kill him inside the court premises while also pressuring him to withdraw his complaint.
The complainant had also lodged police complaints in connection with the alleged incident.
In its order, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing before the BCI after his request for adjournment was rejected on July 7, 2012. However, the bench declined to remit the matter back to the BCI, observing that nearly 21 years had elapsed since the complaint was filed before the Bar Council of Delhi. The top court also noted that the advocate was not engaged by the complainant but had appeared for the opposite party before the Labour Court.
“There is no allegation of any professional misconduct qua the Court proceedings. The allegation of professional misconduct is based on the incident that happened inside the Court premises,” it said.
Referring to the complainant’s police complaints over the alleged assault and threats, the apex court said the criminal aspect of the incident had already been brought to the notice of the police.
“Thus, the culpability part of the incident which happened in the Court premises, was already informed to the Police and insofar as this part is concerned, the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India had no role to play,” it observed.
Holding that the disciplinary proceedings essentially concerned the advocate’s alleged indecent behaviour in the court premises and not his conduct during the judicial proceedings, the top court modified the BCI’s order and disposed of the appeal.
(IANS)
