Read Time: 05 minutes
Court observed that the lawyer was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the order passed by the State Bar Council to suspend a lawyer from practicing in any court nationwide. The Bar had suspended the enrolment of the lawyer after a female lawyer lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him.
The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the lawyer was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council.
The bench, hence, ordered, "The contents of the order no doubt would result in serious consequences to the petitioner both civil and professional. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to submit his defence in the light of the allegations being of nature that would result in serious consequences. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner one more opportunity upto 10.01.2024 to file his objections before the Council".
Court directed that the matter be remitted back to the hands of the Council to consider the objections of the lawyer that he may file.
"The Council is at liberty to regulate the procedure for continuation of the proceedings before it," it added.
A complaint was filed before the Bar Council against Advocate H Manjunath on September 2, 2023. He was issued a notice on September 21, 2023. After receiving the notice, he filed a representation before the Council requesting 10 to 14 days' time to submit his explanation. The communication was sent to the Council on October 5, 2023. The Council waited for 30 days and then passed an order which was challenged by the lawyer before the high court.
The counsel for the Bar Council submitted that the lawyer was afforded adequate opportunity, which he had not availed of. Therefore, no fault could have been found with the proceedings initiated or the order and the Notification so impugned in the subject petition, he contended.
The lawyer appeared in person. He argued that the complaint itself was not maintainable as, if it was an allegation of sexual harassment against a co-advocate, the matter ought to have been placed before the Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Therefore, he submitted that he had to be afforded opportunity to submit his defence in the case as the complaint and entertainment of the complaint were without jurisdiction.
Case Title: H Manjunath v. Karnataka State Bar Council and Another
Please Login or Register
