Case Comment on Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.

Dabholkar
V.Ramanah

Introduction:

The epileptics what else can a tile-request circus dramatized by the witnesses as practised by
the panel of lawyer respondents before us effectively express? Let our story blush. After all,
can't we all belong to The Inner Bencher-bar Republic at once?" The accused suspects are
attorneys working in the Bombay City Trial Court. Their practice commands the highest
degree of ethics in the newspapers, as in the ends. Justice cannot be done without a pellucid
stream that is of considerable public interest, and not just clinical treatment. These
practitioners, as briefly mentioned, were put on the doorstep of the Magistrates' Courts,
watching the possible contested parties come; they were registered by the State Disciplinary
Tribunal. In vision, an unstoppable struggle was taken to the customer's disease to gather his
writings, to assert his obligations also by physical fighting, to minimize charges, and to
protect his job in this undefinable show, often also in the bar library. If those allegations were
valid any Bar member with a simple ethics in their bosom would be outraged by the actions
of their brethren and yet the appellate court, on the national scale, appears to have reached a
verdict, endorsed a 3-point formula by reversing the conclusion by the State Disciplinary
Commission, which matched this conduct with a shot to ask for practice and did not. The bar
Council's office of the State of Maharashtra (the Appellant before us) and thus the Bar
Council of India, who may be a party respondent, were dismayed by this opinion regarding
the rule of professional misconduct. If this interpretation of various conduct looks, there is
nothing to discern between rail carriers and attorneys, but we don't want to hurt the past, and
we listed a prior procedure in order to get our present point home? We should not wish to
dilate the proof more into a date, as it impacts anyone who advocates the respondent, who is
visible with those innovations. There are eight cases, but for reasons we ideally and soon will
be able to disassemble the proof against any of them.

Facts:

With its resolution No 29 dated the 8 August 1964, Maharashtra Bar Council considered that
the Supreme Court had received a complaint in connection with section 35(1) of the Act
against one Kelawala and 15 other counsel, among whoms were those charged with
professional misconduct and who were subject to the present appeals. This practice is subject
to Section 35(1) of the Act and the respondent in C.A. 1467/74 (A. K. Doshi) argued that the

1|Page
Bar Council resolution did not reveal, ex facie, that the advocates concerned have reason to
conclude that ethical wrongdoing was perpetrated, and that it did not appear acceptable,
because the need for "motivation to believe" should not be translated into a formalized
procedural obstacle. This barrier toward frivolous investigations is simply a barrier.

Issues:
It held that without the three elements being met, a lawyer should not be said to behave above
quality or professional conduct and the mark. Consequently, both respondents were removed
from the accusation of professional misconduct. Is the  State Bar council been made available
to the Court of appeal?

Argument Advanced from the Side of the Petitioner:

Intrinsically, the Bar Council resolution notes that the allegation is considered and agreed to
send the referral back to the disciplinary committee that it would have cause to believe that
the cases were tried together as a single proceeding, as required by the law Such an overall
reverence for the disciplinary organization, for us concerned, was correlated with the
respondents. Under the separate appeals before us the respondents were found guilty of
conduct which substantially reduces the Bar's image in the public eye and were disqualified
for a total of three years as lawyers. Appeals is directed to the Bar of India" and specified the
Disciplinary Committee assigned to it pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Act in compliance with
a legislative provision. The Appeallate Disciplinary Committee  heard the appeals and
acquitted them. The Bar Council of Maharashtra has appealed the Court of Justice, which has
been aggrieved by the reversal decision. As stated earlier, the initial obstacle of the locus
standi has been resolved, and Shri V. S. Desai on behalf of the claimant has been discussing
claims on the merits. He has demonstrated the right way in each case, albeit with varying
degrees of mistrust, but converted his forensic fusillade into a very surprising definition of
professional malconduct, which this disciplinary tribunal has embraced. We will pledge each
appeal independently for now, as it is anxiously dependent on fact, although we will address
the legal issue later. The deep regret of such cases is not only in the subversive view of the
appeal court of the professionals' law which attempts to order the snatching briefs and catch
clients are ethical or non-compliant, but also in the naive innocence of fair and speedy
hearings shown in cluings by the State Disciplinary Tribunal. Real, the legislative court
should ordinarily control their proceedings without undue rigidity, according to natural
justice principles; but a broad neglect of the well-known fair trial requirement makes one

2|Page
wonder if at least any of the respondents were not handicapped and whether justice couldn't
be a casualty if the court were not alerted to their trials.

Argument Advanced from the side of the Respondent:

The intimates argued that the Bar Council of State is not a person concerned to continue to
appeal against the decision of his disciplinary committee for these purposes in the Adi
Pherozshah Gandhi case AIR 1971 SC 385 (supra). For those reasons, they argued. First
the Bar council of a State is not a victim as there has been no legitimate appeal to the Bar
Council and the decision of the Indian Bar Council did not deprive it of the State. Second, it
is not by itself the Bar Council of a State that there has been an accusation that the order of
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India is rendered false. It is the order and
not the implications that must aggravate the human. Thirdly, the State bar council does not
have the responsibility to try to correct any suspected mistake by the Bar Council of India
disciplinary committee. The explanation is that the Bar Council of a State has not imposed or
lawfully imposed such an obligation. Fourthly, an order that is to their advantage, financial or
otherwise, or causes them some harm in some manner, may be said to aggravate an
individual. The Bar Council is however not competence to appeal against any decision of the
superior authority. Fourth, the Bar Council of a nation is subordinated to the Bar Council of
India. Finally, the Advocate-General or the Indian Attorney General, who is eligible to appeal
but did not prefer, may have appealed.

In the next stages of this decision, we have some findings on the tribunals at state level and
appeal. Nevertheless, we find that the appeals against facts are convenient to fail on the
assumption that if snatching and battling and demanding exercises are carried out by one of
the respondents, such conduct undermines ethical behavior grossly and calls for discipline.
Case after case, we would like to get rid of Dabholkar who appeared to plead in defense nose
to nose (C.A. 1461/74 respondent). Case after case. The case against him is extremely
satisfactory and is charged with fraud against a bunch of accused attorneys in a simplified
manner. Dissecting and choosing is a wrong process, but it is obviously deposed to human
behavior. Furthermore the only witness who involves him swears: "I didn't necessarily see
him pulling the papers out. Mr. Dabholkar had no discussion with the boys, I didn't hear. He
was also a senior counsel. We can note that because the debates went on, he showed distress.
Besides the feeble mixed proof that he's about 68 years old, there's the case. He pleaded with
a hoop of facts that he was too old to pursue his career and had chosen to retire into the secret
valley of life. He genuinely agreed that while there is evidence that if the history had been

3|Page
sins, he wouldn't take a course of ethical incompetence after he nearly wanted to leave the
Bar. With the exception of a restricted goal. He was left with only four cases that he needed
to complete. Fees have been paid. He further claimed that with the exception of microscopics,
Bombay Paints & Allied Goods, he did not stress any new letters or appear before any court.

Judgment:
It is beyond doubt that there is a very real interest in railways in the public at large. Railways
are found important to a stable national economy; they must first be regarded as an influential
part of public welfare. The Court has also concluded that the management of a railroad has
commitments against the general public as fiduciary duty applicable to stockholders in the
company, and the general public is of utmost significance in relation to the management of a
railroad. The Court concluded that the general public interest in all of these roles are
paramount. "It must be noted," warned the Court, "that the railway is a public company that is
mainly owed by the public, as well as substantial dividends to its owners, to the general
public of the next kind. The terms 'withstanding individuals' are of general meaning and
cannot be limited. Of course they do not include a simple busy person that intervenes in
matters that do not affect him; but they do include someone who contains a legitimate
grievance, since an order has been given that harms his/her rights. Is the General Prosecutor
involved enough in this? He assumes that their Lordships have. The Attorney General
represents the Crown in an excellent colony due to the general public interest protector. It is
his responsibility to take the wrongdoing, suffice in seriousness to justify disciplinary action,
by a barrister or solicitor before the judge. The Bar is not a commercial company like
'barbers, butchers, candlesticks.' Instead it is a public institution dedicated to public justice
and a public service that is unpaid. There are three principles underlying the award of a
monopoly law license to practice: (1) the lawyer has a socially valuable role. (2) The lawyer
may be an expert in that capacity and (3) his success as a competent person is governed by
himself and more formally by the profession in its entirety. Everything that the bar has to do
is manage. The core feature. Look at the Bar Council's functions and it would be clear that a
rainbow, including the legal help of the needy, stitches certain bodies in the expectation of
globally serving humanity and maintaining the ethical canons appropriate for an upright
order, as a part of the public-service duties of the Council.

Provisions involved:

4|Page
Civil – misconduct – Advocate Act, 1961 and Advocate (Amendment) Act, 1974 – whether
Bar Council of State is ‘a person aggrieved’ to take care of appeal under Section 38 –
interests of Bar Council is to uphold standards of professional conduct and etiquette in the
profession – Bar Council acts as custodian of high traditions of the noble profession –
grievance of Bar Council is to be checked out purely from point of view of standards of
professional conduct and etiquette – if any decision of the disciplinary committee of Bar
Council of India is in keeping with State Bar Council like will lower standards and imperil
high traditions and values in the profession – State Bar Council is the aggrieved person to
safeguard interests of public, interests of profession and interest of Bar.

Conclusion:

After all, can't we all belong to The Inner Bencher-bar Republic at once? The accused
suspects are attorneys working in the Bombay City Trial Court. Their practice commands the
highest degree of ethics in the newspapers, as in the ends. Justice cannot be done without a
pellucid stream that is of considerable public interest, and not just clinical treatment. These
practitioners, as briefly mentioned, were put on the doorstep of the Magistrates' Courts,
watching the possible contested parties come; they were registered by the State Disciplinary
Tribunal.

Advocate has a responsibility to perform his colleagues' tasks as mentioned above. The aim
of this rule is to protect the interests of the discipline itself. Procurement is not a corporation
or a profession. The limitation imposed on this occupation in compliance with that Law is
lawful and does not breach Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the constitution.   Furthermore
these limitations are fair and rational, not unreasonable, inventive and evasive. It passes the
two-fold test set out in the Constitution in Article 14. i.e. a rating is equal, fair and rational,
and the object and ranking are Equated. The aim is to make lawyers more successful in the
law profession, to protect the rights of both the defender and the general public and the
proper management of justice for which the legal profession is a collaborator with the
judiciary.

5|Page