The Supreme Court upheld a seven-year suspension of a lawyer who rammed his car into a hotel, stressing that lawyers must maintain discipline. The Court dismissed his appeal, saying no interference was needed in the Bar Council’s fair decision.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Monday, the Supreme Court clearly said that lawyers must always behave in a disciplined way so that the reputation of the whole legal profession is not damaged.
The Court made this strong comment while rejecting an appeal by a lawyer who was suspended by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for seven years.
A bench with Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the case. The lawyer had been punished after he drove his car into a hotel in Madurai, which was owned by the person who complained against him.
The Supreme Court said directly to the lawyer:
“See your conduct. As a lawyer, you dashed your car into the hotel of the complainant. Lawyers need to be disciplined and not spoil the image of the entire profession.”
Earlier, the Bar Council of India had looked into the case and decided that the lawyer’s actions were serious. They first gave him a certain punishment. But the complainant was not satisfied and asked the BCI to review it. In October 2022, the Supreme Court said the BCI had treated both sides fairly and did not interfere with the punishment.
After that, the complainant again filed a review petition with the BCI, and this time the BCI increased the punishment and suspended the lawyer for seven years.
In its new April 2025 order, the BCI’s Disciplinary Committee said:
“This committee is of the view that the plea of the complainant for removal of the respondent from the roll of advocates would be a very harsh punishment and a chance can be given to him to reform himself. The committee is of the view that in the interest of proportionality and fairness, the punishment of suspension of seven years would be appropriate to serve the interest of justice.”
After this, the suspended lawyer (the appellant) again went to the Supreme Court and challenged the BCI’s revised order.
His lawyer, Advocate Abhinav Agrawal, said that there is no option for review in the Advocates Act, 1961. He also argued that once the earlier BCI order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2022, it could not be changed or opened again because of the legal rule called the doctrine of merger.
But the Supreme Court did not agree with these points and refused to change the BCI’s order. The Court dismissed the appeal and made it clear that there was no strong reason to interfere with the punishment.
CASE TITLE:
R. Karmegam v. Hariharasudan.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bar Council of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
