Today, On 24th September, The Supreme Court imposed a Rs 50,000 fine on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for pursuing a baseless complaint against an advocate. The judgment emphasizes accountability and discourages frivolous legal actions by regulatory bodies.
The Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for pursuing a baseless complaint against an advocate.
This amount is to be paid to the advocate involved in the case.
The ruling was delivered by a bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Melita, who dismissed an appeal from BCMG that sought to set-aside a Bombay High Court order staying the disciplinary actions against the advocate.
The case stemmed from a complaint to BCMG alleging professional misconduct related to settlement terms in a civil suit from 1985, where the advocate represented the plaintiff.
The complainant accused the advocate of fraud concerning the Consent Terms dated July 1, 2005, and supplementary Consent Terms dated August 24, 2005, asserting that his property was wrongfully included.
Earlier, On July 6, 2023, BCMG referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In response, the advocate sought relief from the Bombay High Court, which stayed any further disciplinary proceedings.
The High Court noted that neither the complainant nor his father, nor his father’s firm was a party to the original 1985 suit. It also pointed out that the complainant had previously contested the consent terms on fraud grounds, and any alleged fraud could not be attributed to the advocate representing the plaintiff.
Citing its earlier ruling in Geeta Ramanugrah Shashtri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the High Court condemned the practice of using disciplinary complaints to intimidate opposing counsel.
It concluded that, prima facie, no misconduct was evident on the part of the advocate, and BCMG lacked valid grounds for referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee.
Unsatisfied, BCMG filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) with the Supreme Court. However, the apex court upheld the High Court’s reasoning, dismissed the appeal, and imposed costs on the Bar Council.
Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Ors.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 27606/2023
Read Attachment