Bar Councils Must Record Reasons Before Referring Complaints Against Advocates to Disciplinary Committee: SC

The Supreme Court, on September 24, 2025, held that the scheme of Section 35 of the Advocate Act, 1961 mandates the State Bar Council to record its reasons to believe that an advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct before referring the matter for disposal to the disciplinary committee.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta underscored that this prerequisite of recording reasons is a sine qua non before a complaint can be forwarded to the disciplinary committee for an inquiry. Court observed that, "Reference of a complaint of the disciplinary committee would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession. Hence a cryptic order referring the complaint to the DC without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations contained in the complaint would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order".

Court quashed a complaint and disciplinary proceedings initiated against an advocate, Rajiv Narula, by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG). The BCMG had challenged an interim order dated November 4, 2023, from the Bombay High Court, which stayed the disciplinary proceedings against the advocate.

The apex court, after examining the facts, found no justification for arraigning the advocate in the complaint for alleged misconduct under the 1961 Act. The court noted that there was no professional relationship between the advocate and the complainant, as the advocate was representing the opposite party in a suit. "We say so for the reason that there existed no professional relationship between the respondent advocate and the complainant. His prosecution, as being the lawyer of the opposite party in the suit before the High Court, was highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for," the bench stated.

Court also highlighted that typically, a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate is a precondition for invoking disciplinary jurisdiction on grounds of professional misconduct. In this case, the actions attributed to the advocate, even if taken at face value, could not be considered as misconduct.

Court heavily criticised the order passed by the Judge-Advocate for referring the complaint to the disciplinary committee. It was deemed "cryptic and laconic," as it failed to record any prima facie satisfaction that the advocate had committed misconduct. The order also lacked any reference to the allegations in the complaint, indicating a "total non-application of mind".

The bench held that, "In the absence of such prima facie satisfaction, the statutory requirement under Section 35 remains non-complied, and the order of reference is ex facie in teeth of Section 35(1) of the 1961 Act. Hence, the same cannot be sustained".

Court closed the pending writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the BCMG for entertaining a frivolous complaint and for dragging the advocate to the Supreme Court. The cost is to be deposited with the Bombay High Court Registry and then paid to the advocate, Rajiv Narula.

In a similar matter, the court upheld a Bombay High Court order that quashed a complaint against another advocate, Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. The complaint accused her of forgery, perjury, and cheating for merely identifying the deponent in an affidavit, which the High Court had found to be "wholly absurd and untenable." The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that, "In our considered view, the said finding recorded by the High Court is perfectly justified and hence unassailable. An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit".

Court further added that the complaint against Shastri was not only baseless but also founded on "malicious and spiteful insinuations". The actions and order of the BCMG in directing the registration of the complaint were held to be illegal and "bordering on perversity." The court concluded that it was a case of "malicious prosecution of the advocate at the behest of the opponent litigant."

Dismissing the petitions filed by the complainant and the BCMG, court noted that they had caused "immeasurable grief and harassment" to the advocate. It imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 each on the complainant, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, and the BCMG, to be paid to the advocate.

Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra And Goa Vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors

Judgment Date: September 24, 2025

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta