Allahabad High Court Sets Aside 10-Year Suspension of Advocate Over Bigamy Allegations

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a 10-year suspension imposed on an advocate by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council over allegations of bigamy, holding that the disciplinary action debarring him from legal practice across the country was taken ex parte and in breach of the principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla quashed the Bar Council’s order dated February 23, 2025, which had barred advocate Sushil Kumar Rawat from practising law anywhere in the country. Court directed the Bar Council to issue a proper notice to the advocate and pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks.

Disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, which treated the allegation of bigamy against the petitioner as an offence involving moral turpitude. On that basis, the Bar Council imposed the maximum punishment of long-term suspension from practice.

Challenging the order, Rawat approached the High Court, contending that the entire process had been conducted behind his back. He argued that he was never given a meaningful opportunity to present his case and that the punishment was imposed ex parte. The petitioner also pointed out that he had not been convicted of the offence of bigamy by any criminal court, making the Bar Council’s action premature and legally unsustainable.

Senior counsel appearing for Rawat argued that even assuming the allegation of bigamy to be true, it would not automatically amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. Reliance was placed on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, which have consistently held that moral turpitude must involve conduct that is inherently base, vile or depraved, and that each case must be assessed on its own facts.

The Bar Council, on the other hand, defended its decision by relying on a judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Mohanasudaram v. The President of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi and Another (2013), which had held that bigamy could amount to moral turpitude in certain circumstances. It was also argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and that the writ petition was therefore not maintainable.

However, the High Court was not persuaded. After examining the record, the bench noted serious procedural lapses in the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. Court pointed out that the show cause notice was issued on February 17, 2025, calling upon the petitioner to appear on March 10, 2025. Despite this, the impugned order of suspension was passed on February 23, 2025, well before the date fixed for hearing.

This makes it evident that the impugned order is passed ex parte without granting any opportunity of hearing, the bench observed, holding that such action was clearly violative of the principles of natural justice.

Court also recorded that the Bar Council failed to satisfy it on the question of service of notice. Despite being granted time, the respondents were unable to produce convincing material to show that the petitioner had been duly informed of the proceedings.

On the substantive issue of moral turpitude, court noted that the Madras High Court decision relied upon by the Bar Council was distinguishable, as it involved a case where the individual had already been convicted of bigamy. In the present case, there was no such conviction against the petitioner.

In view of these findings, the High Court quashed the suspension order and restored the matter to the Bar Council for fresh consideration. Court directed the authorities to issue proper notice to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks.

With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Sushil Kumar Rawat vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman And Another

Order Date: November 27, 2025

Bench: Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla