The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition by a suspended advocate who, instead of appealing his Bar Council of India disciplinary punishment to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, sought to challenge it collaterally through a criminal complaint alleging offences under the SC/ST Act and the IPC against the judge who had rejected an earlier complaint. The Court held the only remedy against a BCI appellate order lies under Section 38, and that the revisional jurisdiction disclosed no error warranting interference.
Noting that the accused seen in the video and linked to DNA evidence had already been granted bail, and that the applicant had spent two and a half years in custody with only seven of thirty-one witnesses examined, the Delhi High Court held that his case prima facie stood on a better footing and granted bail despite his having been declared a proclaimed offender.
After the applicant was granted pardon and became an approver, the State argued that a regular bail application was no longer maintainable. The Delhi High Court treated the plea as one under its inherent jurisdiction and held that the statutory bar on releasing an approver under Section 343(4)(b) of the BNSS operates only against the Trial Court.
The Delhi High Court directed residents of three slum clusters near the Prime Minister’s residence in Delhi’s Race Course area to vacate within 15 days and shift to government-provided accommodation, warning authorities could initiate legal action if occupants failed to comply within the prescribed timeframe.
