1. State vs.

Lalit Mohan Nanda It is the responsibility of a Lawyer to defend his client's interests by all
reasonable and honourable means, but the opposite occurred in the case of State vs. Lalit Mohan Nanda. In
this case, the point of concern was whether Mr. Nanda was guilty of VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 2020
Dejurenexus.com professional misconduct for a violation of the laws on the professional conduct of lawyers
under Section 15(a) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. Advocate Lalit Mohan Nanda was found guilty of
professional misconduct by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court, as he was found guilty of changing sides, meaning
that after appearing for the first party, he had appeared for the opposite party in the same case. The
responsibility of upholding a client's interest was violated.2

2. Shambhu Ram Yadav vs. Hanum Das Khatry3 The respondent wrote a letter to his client in the case of
Shambhu Ram Yadav vs. Hanum Das Khatry, and asked him to bribe the judge so that he could help the client
win the case. The respondent was found guilty of bribery under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, for bribing a
judge, and he was barred from practise for a term of two years by the State Bar Council. By order of 31 July
1999, the respondent challenged the above order before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India. By order of 31 July 1999, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, consisting of three
members, reinforced the penalty and ordered that the name of the respondent be excluded from the roll of
advocates, thus permanently prohibits him from practice. In addition, the respondent was transferred to the
Honourable Supreme Court of India. "The Honourable Supreme Court here upheld the decision of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and declared that" The legal profession is not a trade or
business. It is a noble profession”.

3. Emperor vs. K.C.B. Some tins of ghee were held in Bazrang Lal Marwari's custody in the case of Emperor
vs. K.C.B, as it was confiscated for adulteration by the Municipal Authorities, Katwa. Bazrang Lal Marwari was
falsely informed by the advocate that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katwa, had instructed the owner to hand over
the tins. The Honourable Calcutta High Court ruled here that the lawyer was guilty of misconduct for supplying
false data.

4. L.C. Goyal vs. Suresh Joshi

If a lawyer receives and misuses money from his clients for court purposes, it is known as misappropriation,
which amounts to professional misconduct. One such case of misappropriation is L.C Goyal v. Suresh Joshi. In
this specific case, the money earned as a court fee was misappropriated by an attorney (appellant in this
case). The appellant had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 25,491/- for which he had been found guilty of
professional misconduct by the Honourable Supreme Court
1. Noratanmal Chaurasia vs. M.R. Murli (2004) 5 SCC 689– The Supreme court has
held that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but
misconduct envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay
down exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline which
however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether done
or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. 

2. Narain Pandey vs. Pannalal Pandey (2013) 11 SCC 435 – An advocate who is
found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing false and
fictitious compromises on behalf of the client without any authority deserves
punishment proportionate to the degree of misconduct. Such punishment must meet
two objectives- deterrence and correction. The Court referred to the Preamble of the
BCI Rules- Chapter II while adjudging the misconduct. 
3. Shambhuram Yadav vs. Hanumandas Khatri AIR 2001 SC 2509- The lawyer
suggested that his client give bribe to the judge to get the suit decided in his favour.
The Supreme Court held the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct. (Violation of
Rule 3 and 4 of BCI Rules- – Chapter II)
4. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kurapati Satyanarayana AIR 2003 SC 178–
Lawyer misappropriated his client’s money. BCI acquitted him on the ground that
there was no intention. Supreme Court held this decision of BCI to be “unfounded
and perverse” and lacking the serious thought which was required to be given to the
disciplinary committee of the BCI in the discharge of quasi-judicial functions while
probing into such grave instances. (Rule 23 and 25 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II)
5. Harish Chandra Tiwari vs. Baiju 2002 (2) SCC 67- Misappropriation of client’s
money is a grave misconduct to be committed by a legal practitioner, and must be
punished accordingly under the Advocates Act. (Rule 23 and 25 of the BCI Rules-
Chapter II)
6. Smt. Siya Bai vs. Sita Ram BCI Tr. Case No. 8/1987– The advocate withdrew the
decretal amounts paid and did not make the payment to the client, in violation of
Rule 27 of the BCI Rules on Professional Ethics. The Disciplinary Committee of the
Bar Council of India ordered the advocate to refund the money to the complainant
 along with the 10% interest per annum and also ordered suspension of advocate for
a period of one year. 
7. In Re: An Advocate vs. Unknown AIR 1961 Ker 209- It is the imperative duty of
the counsel on receipt of the client’s decretal money, to inform the client thereof and
pay him without the amount under receipt without any delay. The Kerala High Court
suspended the respondent for a period of six months, for non-fulfillment of this duty
under Rule 27 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
8. Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. V. Dabholkar and others AIR 1976 SC 242- The
Bar Council functions in a dual capacity, one as the prosecutor through its Executive
Committee and the other quasi-judicial performed through its Disciplinary
Committee. Hence, being the prosecutor, the State Bar Council would be an
‘aggrieved person’ and therefore, the appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act,
1961 would be maintainable.
9. PD Khandekar vs Bar Council of Maharashtra 1984 SCR (1) 414- It is
professionally improper for a member of the bar to prepare false documents, or to
draw pleadings knowing that the allegations made are untrue to his knowledge.
Thus, giving of improper legal advice may amount to professional misconduct, which
may not be so by the giving of wrong legal advice. (Violation of Rule 11 of the BCI
Rules-Chapter II) 
10. Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya AIR 1997 SC 864- The defendant
assaulted his opponent with a knife. Prosecuted under Section 307 of IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act. Conviction suspended on basis of a letter from the
governor. Supreme Court held that his conduct was such that his name should be
removed from the state role of advocates as he was unworthy of remaining in the
profession after the conviction. (Rule 7A of Chapter III of BCI Rules) 
11. NG Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde AIR 2001 SC 2028- Advocates kept
seeking adjournments, and thus harassing the witnesses for the purpose of cross-
examination. Guilty of misconduct. Court also analysed Section 35 of the Act and
held that the requirement of “reason to believe” cannot be converted into a
formalised procedural road block, it being essentially a barrier against frivolous
enquiries. Violation of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
12. In Re: Tulsidas Amanmal Karani vs. Unknown AIR 1941 Bom 228 – Section
35 envisages not only ‘professional misconduct’ but also ‘other misconducts’, not
defined in the Act. In case relating to Indian Bar Councils Act 1926 the Court held
that “any conduct which in any way renders a man unfit for the exercise of his
profession or is ‘likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of justice by this
Court or any of the Courts subordinate thereto’ may be considered to be misconduct
calling for disciplinary action.” 
13. Central Bureau of Hyderabad vs. K Narayan Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 – For
liability, there has to be moral delinquency. Mere negligence sans moral delinquency
will not suffice. If negligence is culpable nature, then it may lead to prof misconduct
but not necessarily criminal liability. 
14. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45- Lawyers have no right to
strike, i.e. to abstain from appearing in the court in cases in which they hold vakalat
for the parties, even if it is in response to or in compliance with a decision of any
association or body of lawyers. 
15. Byram Pestonji Gariwal vs. Union Bank of India (1992) 1 SCC 31 – Supreme
Court discussed the role of the counsel in compromise of suit. It will be prudent for
counsel not to act on implied authority (given by vakalatnama) except when
warranted by the necessity of circumstances demanding immediate adjustment of
suit by agreement or compromise and the signature of the party cannot be obtained
without undue delay 
16. Rajendra Pai vs. Alex Fernandes AIR 2002 SC 1808 – The lawyer in a class
action suit settled contingent fee depending on the quantum of compensation
awarded to the claimant; and that he identified some claimants in opening a bank
account wherein the cheque for the awarded amount of compensation was lodged
and then the amount withdrawn which identification was later on found to be false.
Held guilty of misconduct (as in violation of Rule 20 of the BCI Rules of Conduct)
and suspended for seven years. 
17. R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264 – The advocate
does not have a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his
client.
18. Virendra Kumar Gupta vs. Anil Kumar Jain –The lawyer in connivance with
the other party, deliberately and intentionally did not appear in the execution
proceedings of his client, which were therefore dismissed in default. The lawyer did
not serve the interest of his client and in fact acted against his interest. Guilty of
misconduct under Rule 5 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II. 
19. Joginder Singh vs BCI AIR 1975 Delhi 192 – Advocate had concealed facts
about his conviction under Section 473 of IPC and the fact that he was out on bail.
Given the high standards expected of those in the legal profession, it would
definitely be a fraud/misrepresentation if the concerned advocate does not disclose
the fact of his previous conviction, especially those involving moral turpitude as they
help ascertain the character of a man. (Violation of Rule 43 of the BCI Rules-
Chapter II) 
20. Surendra Nath Mittal vs. Daya Nand Swaroop BCI Tr. Case No. 63 / 1987.
– The advocate made manipulation in the operative part of the judgement and
decree by adding the words “mai sood” i.e. including interest. Disciplinary committee
held him guilty of professional misconduct. (Violation of Rule 1 and 2 of the BCI
Rules- Chapter II) 
21. Vikramaditya vs. Smt. Jamila Khatoon D.C. Appeal No. 21/1996 – The
obtaining of the signature by the advocate on blank vakalatnama and blank
watermarked papers for the purpose of defrauding the client’s amounts to the
professional misconduct under Rule 15 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II. 
22. Allahabad Bank vs. Girish Prasad Verma BCI Tr. Case No. 49/1993 – The
advocate did not file, rather, misappropriated the sum paid to him by the client for
the purpose of court fees (in violation of Rule 23 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II). U.P
Bar Council disciplinary committee held him guilty of professional misconduct. 
23. Babu Lal Jain v. Subhash Jain BCI Tr. Case No. 115 / 1996- The complainant
alleged that the respondent advocate was a practising lawyer as well as was
working as an editor, printer, and publisher of a weekly paper. Rule 47 of BCI rules
prohibits an advocate to be engaged personally in any business. The respondent
advocate was found to have been actively engaged in carrying on the business and
his conduct was taken by the disciplinary committee as professional misconduct. 
24. John D’souza v. Edward Ani 1994 SCC (2) 64 The lawyer refused to return the
will he executed, in spite of two letters demanding to hand over the will. The
Supreme Court held that the advocate has committed breach of his professional
duty and found him guilty of profession misconduct. (Violation of Rule 15 of the BCI
Rules- Chapter II) 
25. V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan 1979 SCR (1) 1054- The lawyer failed to
disclose the conflicting interests to client, and also betrayed the trust reposed in him
by the client, hence violating Rule 24 of the BCI Rules of Professional Ethics. The
lawyer was suspended for one year. 
Introduction
The current research has been undertaken to understand various aspects of professional misconduct in the legal
profession. It is thereby important to recognise the need for professional ethics and morals. Professional ethics
are a set of principles or standards that regulate the conduct, behaviour and morals of an ordinary individual.
This is an essential to the working of Bar and the Bench for administration of justice. It is thus said that man
without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world. 

Case 1: O.P. Sharma & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana[1] (2011) 6 SCC 86
Appellant: O.P. Sharma & Ors.
Respondent: High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Bench: Hon'ble Justices P. Sathasivam & B.S. Chauhan
Facts: In 1999, an advocate made derogatory, abusive and threatening remarks inside a court room against
the Judicial Magistrate for his order remanding the accused to the police custody. Later the Judicial Magistrate
wrote a letter to Sessions and District Judge who intimated the Registrar of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana regarding the same. On this, the High Court took suo motu action against the advocate, owner/
publisher and editor of the newspaper who published the incident for contempt of court. Thereafter, the
contemnor made unconditional apology through affidavits before the High Court. However, was found guilty of
criminal contempt with punishment of six months/ three months (simple imprisonment) along with
₹1000/2000/- (fine) each. Consequently, the contemnor appealed before the Supreme Court of India. 
Issue: Whether the act of advocate amounted to breach of professional misconduct?
Law: Section 2 (c),12 (1) Contempt of Courts Act, 197;
Arguments: It was opined that the case was filed to scandalise the court, shake the confidence of the
public in justice delivery system and to damage the reputation of the court. Whereas, the Appellant (s)
emphasised on freedom of expression as primary and essential to rule of law and liberty of expression. The
appellant (s) also tendered unconditional apology and showed regret through an undertaking to have good
behaviour in future.
Analysis: The court analysed the nature and scope of advocate’s role, professional ethics and conduct
before the court. And discussed the duty of the court in aforesaid matters. Further, the court observed that the
advocate had a countervailing duty to maintain the dignity, decorum and order of the court. Therefore, the court
stated that liberty of free expression cannot be used to make unfounded allegations against the judiciary. And
that the advocates must maintain professionalism i.e. integral to the sanctity of institutions.
Judgement: It was laid down that both bar and the bench must adhere to the standards prescribed for
morals and professional ethics. And that the court including tribunals, advocates, judges and staff must act as a
beacon of light for dispensation of justice. Further, in light of Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 and Contempt of
Court Act, 1971 the court observed that it is the responsibility and social duty of courts to uphold the rule of law
and ensure efficient justice delivery system. Thus, the Supreme Court of India affirming High Court's order held
that apology on behalf of contemnor could only be accepted by the court as an exception to general rule.
Opinion: In my opinion, the advocate plays an important role in administration of justice and in delivering
efficient and effective judgement. Therefore, the advocate must uphold the rule of law and show respect to the
judgement delivered by the judge in the court of law. Similarly it is the responsibility of the court to maintain
decorum and order in court. Acceptance of apology is subjective, however should not become a general norm.
Case 2: Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana
[2] AIR 2003 SC 175
Appellant: Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent: K. Satyanarayanam
Bench: Hon'ble Justices V. N. Khare & Ashok Bhan
Facts: A complaint was filed before the District Munif Magistrate by G. Nagabhanam against
K.Satyanarayanam for retaining the decretal amount received from execution proceedings. The case was
transferred to Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh which held that retaining money was professional misconduct on
part of the advocate. On appeal to the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India ('DC of BCI'), it set aside
the order passed by the State Bar Council ('SBC') removing the name of Kurupati Saatyanarayanan from the roll
of SBC on ground of professional misconduct in discharge of his duties. DC of BCI observed that there was no
intention on part of the government counsel to misappropriate money. Therefore, the Bar Council of Andhra
Pradesh appealed before the DC of BCI on this said order.  
Issue: Whether the act of retaining client’s money is professional misconduct or negligence?
Arguments: The Appellant, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh believed that retaining client’s money
amounted to gravest professional misconduct. However, the Respondent claimed that the appeal was not
maintainable as the ‘aggrieved party’ or ‘person aggrieved’ did not file the case. Further, it was claimed that
though the advocate had withdrawn money on behalf of the complainant but he never refused to return the
same. It was also argued that no intention to misappropriate decretal amount was there on part of the advocate.
Analysis: The court observed that the role of the Bar Council is of dual capacity, one as prosecutor through
its Executive Committee and the other as quasi-judicial authority through its disciplinary committee. Therefore,
being the prosecutor SBC could be an ‘aggrieved party’, thus an appeal under Section 39 of Advocates Act,
1961 is maintainable. The Supreme Court further found order of DC of BCI unsustainable due to breach of
trust. Since the advocate or ‘delinquent’ (as referred in the case) utilized the money for personal need of
treatment of family member. The advocate was guilty of undermining the confidence of litigating public and
committing professional misconduct. Further, the court gave analogy that if a public servant misappropriated
money he was liable under Prevention of Corruption Act, with imprisonment of not less than one year.
Judgement: The conduct of the ‘delinquent’ was reprehensible and was serious misconduct. The
Supreme Court of India directed the removal of advocate's name from roll of the Bar Council and held that the
Appellant was entitled to costs of this appeal i.e. ₹ 5,000/-
Opinion: In my opinion, this is a subjective case and it is difficult to determine whether the act of retaining
client’s money was intentional as to misappropriate or to return it. I believe that such acts of retaining money
must not be entertained. The advocate has a social duty to uphold the rule of law and administer justice.
Therefore, an advocate must not undermine the confidence of litigating public and cause embarrassment to the
legal profession. At the same time it is pertinent to note that clients must not allege with dishonest intention in
order to avoid payment to advocate for the services rendered.
Case 3: Narain Pandey v. Pannalal Pandey
[3] (2013) 11 SCC 435
Appellant: Narain Pandey
Respondent: Pannalal Pandey
Bench:  Hon'ble Justices R.M. Lodha & Anil R. Dave
Facts: The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 against the Respondent, an
advocate in District Sant Rabidass Nagar, Bhadohi before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh ('BCUP') for having
allegedly forged and fabricated documents including settlement documents without the knowledge of the parties
in the Consolidation court. The Complainant prayed for cancellation of license to practice and sought the
advocate to be booked for professional misconduct on account of ‘farzy vakalatnama’ and fictitious
compromise. The DC of BCUP vide order dated 28.05.2002 debarred the advocate from practice for a period of
seven years from the judgement. Thereafter, the Respondent appealed under Section 37 of the said act before
the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India ('DC of BCI'). The advocate was reprimanded and sought
to pay ₹1000/- to the Advocates Welfare fund vide order dated 20.06.2004. Consequently, the Complainant
appealed before the Supreme Court of India ('SC'). 
Issue: Whether the punishment awarded by DC of BCI was just and proper?
Arguments: While the Respondent claimed that a false case was made against him due to enmity. The
Respondent advocate failed to cross examine the witnesses of the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that
the advocate had not only forged documents but also fictitiously compromised the party’s interests. Therefore,
the lack of oral or documentary evidence on part of advocate could not dilute the charges of professional
misconduct. 
Analysis: The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of BCUP observed that the advocate committed serious
professional misconduct by filing 'vakalatnamas' without any authority and later compromising fictitiously
adversely affecting the interests of the parties concerned herein. Further the Supreme Court held that the order
given by DC of BCI was flawed. As it overlooked documentary evidence, seven witnesses and forged and
fabricated vakalatnams. The DC of BCUP also failed to have a cross- examination. Additionally, SC struck
down the view of DC of BCI of the advocate being negligent before Chakbandi Officer.    
Judgement: The Court held that the advocate was guilty of serious and grave professional misconduct.
Therefore, in interest of administration of justice and to protect the traditions of Bar and Bench fraudulent
conduct of lawyer must not be taken lightly. Court held “Any compromise with the purity, dignity and
nobility of the legal profession is surely bound to affect the faith and respect of the people in the rule
of law.” Order passed by DC of BCI was modified and advocate was awarded punishment of professional
misconduct.
Opinion: This is a clear case of fraudulent conduct on part of respondent advocate. The fact that no counter
was made to the arguments put forth by the complainant. And that complainant had ample documentary
evidence shows the order by the Supreme Court to modify the order of BCUP was correct. Finally, this case
helped highlight the twin objectives to prevent and reduce professional misconduct that is deterrence and
correction.
Case 4: Mahabir Prasan Singh v. (M/S) Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
[4] (1999) 1 SCC page 37; AIR 1999 SC 287
Appellant: Mahabir Prasan Singh
Respondent: M/S Jacks Aviation Private Ltd.
Bench: Hon'ble Justices S. Saghir Ahmad & K.T. Thomas
Facts: The Appellant filed a civil suit for recovery of possession of a building against the Respondent before
ADJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi. During the pendency of suit the Delhi Bar Association passed a resolution boycotting
the court due to improper behaviour towards the lawyers. To this, the Respondent sought suo motu transfer of
case from trial court to some other court. After the transfer petition was dismissed, the Respondent filed a
revision petition in the Delhi High Court to stay the proceedings before the trial court. After repeated delays, the
single bench of Delhi High Court entertained the revision petition and stayed further proceedings in the trial
court. Thus, the Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition ('SLP') before the Supreme Court of India.       
Issue: Whether the Delhi High Court committed Jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition filed
by the Respondent challenging the order of the trail court?
Arguments: The Respondent advocate as a member of Delhi Bar Association ('DBA') claimed to be
bound by the resolutions of executive committee of the DBA to not appear before the court as part of the
boycott. The Appellant had no objection to transfer of the case however the court held that no transfer of case
was possible under Section 151 and that case lied under Section 24 of CPC, 1908.  Appellant wanted only the
pronouncement of the judgement sought under Order XII, Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (CPC)
Analysis:  The court observed that if any counsel was unwilling to appear before the court, for justifiable
reasons, the party could engage another counsel in this regard. Such counsel was also required to return the case
and not retain it. The court concluded that no case was to be adjourned on ground of advocate strike or boycott.
Such professional misconduct was to be discouraged. The judicial officers were to not bow down to pressure
tactics of boycott and proceed with trail of the case.
Judgement: The Supreme Court of India held that High Court committed grave error in entertaining the
revision petition and passing the impugned order. The court held that the lawyer is under an obligation to
maintain the purity, dignity and decorum of court of law. Further Bar and Bench were recognised as
inextricable wings of the judicial forum and therefore mutual respect is important for administration of justice.
Opinion: I believe an advocate has a huge role to play in dispensation of administering justice. And
therefore going on strike or boycott is a dangerous stance that hampers not only the legal profession but also
affects the justice delivery mechanism. In such cases I believe the Bar and Bench must negotiate where the
advocates have been wronged. However, in case of strike and boycott the advocates must be punished. Since
they obstruct the administration of justice, cause delay in proceeding with the case that is detrimental to the
client’s case. The court’s observation that “when both parties combine together they can avoid a court and get a
court of their own choice” is correct however, such trivial matters must be resolved at the latest.  
Conclusion
In reference to aforementioned case laws of professional misconduct as under Advocates Act, 1961 and
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 it is clear that the objective is to administer justice. Therefore, the relationship
between Bar and Bench is of supreme importance. All legal functionaries including advocates, judges, staff etc.
must work in tandem with law to deliver justice. Each one should fulfil the duties and responsibilities bestowed
upon them. Further, the Bar and Bench must engage and work together in dispensation of justice. The trivial
issues between them must be sought out quickly for efficient and effective working of the courts. The advocates
and judges must adhere to standards to professional ethics and morals laid down in Bar Council of India Rules
and the above mentioned laws.
 2015(6) ALL MR 407 (S.C.)
(SUPREME COURT)

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.

Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Narayan Swamy & Anr.

Civil Appeal No.7133 of 2013

15th September, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, Mr. B. RAMANA MURTHY, Mr.

SUMANTH NOOKALA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. ANNAM D. N. RAO, Ms. NEELAM JAIN, Mr. SUDIPTO
SIRCAR, Ms. VAISHALI R., Mr. ARDHENDUMAULI KUMAR PRASAD

Notaries Act (1952), S.3 - Advocates Act (1961), S.35 - Advocate appointed as
Notary - Misuse of blank stamp papers with his attestation by affixing his
signature as well as rubber stamp impression - Is very serious misconduct and
Bar Council was justified in debarring him from practicing as Advocate - He
cannot revive his functions as Notary but in view of nature of misconduct
punishment can be modified and restricted to period of one year and three
months. (2004) 5 SCC 689 Rel. on. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 10)

Cases Cited:
Noratanmal Chouraria Vs. M.R. Murli and Anr., (2004) 5 SCC 689 [Para 5]
Narain Pandey Vs. Pannalal Pandey, 2013 ALL SCR 73=(2013) 11 SCC 435 [Para 9]

JUDGMENT

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. :- Delay condoned.

Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is the appellant. Challenge is to the order dated 17th
March, 2012 passed by s the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C.
Appeal No. 31 of 2010 in and by which the Bar Council of India set aside the order of
punishment of the appellant dated 5th December, 2009, imposed on respondent No.1
herein who is a practising Advocate in the State of Andhra Pradesh for certain alleged
misconduct.

2. The appellant passed its order against the respondent No. 1 on 5th December, 2009
in Complaint Case No. 34 of 2008 holding that the first respondent committed the
misconduct of violating the terms and conditions of his appointment as Notary in
attesting the documents and misused his position as a Notary and failed to follow the
provisions of the Notaries Act and the Indian Stamp Act. Reliance was placed upon
Exhibits C3 to C6 and D1 to D2 in support of its conclusion about the guilt of
respondent No. 1. As a matter of fact, the above documents C1 to C2, photocopy of
which are placed before us discloses that respondent No. 1 had attested blank stamp
papers of the value of Rs. 10/- and Rs.20/- of three different dates namely, 8th March,
2007, 16th August, 2007 and 27th October, 2007 by affixing the seal of Notary and as
an Advocate. The above documents were stated to have been forwarded to the
appellant by the Registrar General of the High Court based on a complaint made by
one, Ramchandra Rao, a graduate and a private employee in Hyderabad who brought
to the notice of the High Court about the professional misconduct of respondent No. 1
herein.

3. In its detailed order dated 5th December, 2009 the appellant held that the conduct of
the first respondent in having abused his position as a Notary by attesting blank stamp
papers and by affixing signature along with the rubber stamp impression were in
violation of the provisions of the Notaries Act in particular Section 35 of the Advocates
Act. Though respondent No. 1 contended that his role as a Notary is different from his
status as an Advocate, the said stand of respondent No. 1 was rightly rejected by the
appellant.

4. Unfortunately, by the impugned order, the Bar Council of India without appreciating
the legal position under the Notaries Act as well as the Advocates Act, in a superficial
manner, proceeded to hold that violation of the provisions of the Stamp Act and
Notaries Act will have no impact on the conduct of respondent No. 1 vis-a-vis his status
as an Advocate. What was omitted to be noted by the Bar Council of India was that the
very recognition of the respondent No. 1 as a Notary under the provisions of the
Notaries Act was by virtue of his status as an Advocate. The status of a person as an
Advocate was sine qua non to be recognized as a Notary. Section 2(c) defines 'legal
professional' to mean an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of the
Advocates Act, 1961. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Central and the State
Governments for the whole or any part of India or for the whole or any part of the State
respectively is empowered to appoint a Notary, any legal professional or other persons
who possess such qualification as may be prescribed. In such circumstances, when
the first respondent by virtue of his status as an Advocate was appointed as a Notary,
certainly he cannot be heard to state that his role as a Notary should be delinked from
his status as an Advocate and that for whatever violation he committed in his capacity
as a Notary no action can be taken against him by the appellant, namely, the Bar
Council of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, we are not in a position to sustain the reasoning
of the Bar Council of India in setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the
appellant in its order dated 5th December, 2009 debarring the first respondent from
practising as an Advocate.

5. In this context, we also wish to refer to the Three Judge Bench decision of this Court
reported in Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli and Another (2004) 5 SCC 689
wherein while examining as to what would constitute 'misconduct' as an Advocate
under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, this Court has held as under in
paragraphs 7 and 8:-

"7. Misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1961. Misconduct,
inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, althougb it would not be possible to lay
down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which,
however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether
done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, "improper
behaviour, intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule or standard
of behaviour".

8. Misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite

rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it is
a violation of definite law."
6. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conduct of the first respondent in
having provided scope for misusing the blank stamp papers with his attestation by
affixing his signature as well as rubber stamp impressions is a very serious conduct
definitely attracting the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 for taking appropriate
proceedings against him for misconduct and also for passing appropriate orders of
punishment.

7. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 contended that the
issuance of blank stamp papers by the first respondent was not deliberate but the
same were kept in his table drawer which was stealthily removed by some one and
launched a complaint against him. When the attestation of a Notary in a document is
recognized in law for various statutory requirements, we see no justifiable ground for
the respondent No. 1 to state that as a matter of course he was keeping signed blank
stamp papers in his custody that too in his table drawer without proper safeguards. We,
therefore, do not find any substance in such a stand taken on behalf of respondent
No.1 which was rightly rejected by the appellant - Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.

8. The learned counsel, however, brought to our notice that after the initial order of
punishment debarring the first respondent once and for all from practising as an
Advocate was passed by the appellant Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 5th
December, 2009, the first respondent filed his appeal by way of D.C. Appeal No.31 of
2010 before the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of India issued an order of
stay of the order dated 5th December, 2009 only on 9th January 2011. Learned
counsel, therefore, pointed out that the respondent No. 1 had to necessarily suspend
his practice as from 5th December, 2009 till 9th January, 2011 and that by virtue of the
order of punishment passed by the appellant Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, the
Certificate of Notary was also cancelled and that he no longer continues to be a Notary
Public. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the period of one year and one
month during which time the first respondent was disabled from practising as an
Advocate itself was sufficient punishment undergone by him.

9. We heard Mr. P Vishwanatha Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bar
Council of Andhra Pradesh on the said question and the learned senior counsel
vehemently submitted that the profession of an Advocate is a noble profession and
respondent No. 1 having proved himself to be unworthy of the said status, the order
dated 5th December, 2009 passed by the appellant should be restored and he should
be debarred from practising as an Advocate so that it would act as a deterrent for
others also not to indulge in any such malpractice. We find force in the said submission
of the learned senior counsel. However, in this context we wish to be guided by the
decision of this Court reported in Narain Pandey v. Pannalal Pandey (2013) 11 SCC
435 : [2013 ALL SCR 73] wherein this Court in paragraphs 13 and 15 to 20 has
highlighted that such punishment should be commensurate with the degree of
professional misconduct and that imposition of any such punishment should achieve
twin objectives of deterrence and correction.

10. When we apply the said principle we find that in the case on hand there is no
specific allegation of any misconduct as against the respondent No. 1 such as any of
his dealing with any of his clients with reference to any particular litigation or any such
similar activity connected with his profession as an Advocate. The allegation was that
he was in the habit of issuing blank attested stamp papers and thereby enabling the
unscrupulous elements to misuse such stamp papers for creating false documents.
Considering the nature of misconduct alleged and found proved against respondent
No. 1, namely that he was found in possession of blank attested stamp papers with the
signature affixed along with the rubber stamp impression, we are convinced that even
while affirming the finding of misconduct found proved against respondent No.1 as per
the order of the appellant-Bar Council dated 5th December, 2009, the punishment can
be modified and restricted to a period of one year and three months. It will be relevant
to note that his Notary Certificate has already been cancelled and, therefore, there will
be no scope for reviving his functions as a Notary. We also make it clear that having
regard to his past misconduct in his Notary activities, he shall never be recognised as a
Notary in future. Since the appellant admittedly did not practise between 5th
December, 2009 and 9th January, 2011 by virtue of the order of the appellant dated
5th December, 2009, he shall suffer further two more months suspension of his
practice which shall be carried out in the months of October and November, 2014.
11. With the above direction, this appeal stands allowed, impugned order is set aside,
the order of the appellant dated 5th December, 2009 stands restored with the above
modification as regards punishment imposed.

Appeal allowed.

Professional Misconduct by lawyers in India

Professional Misconduct- Meaning
The misconduct has been defined in Black’s Dictionary as transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behaviour, improper or wrong
behaviour.
Its synonyms are misdemeanour, impropriety, mismanagement, offence but not negligence or
carelessness.

In the case Noratanmal Chaurasia v. M.R. Murli the Supreme court has held that misconduct has
not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but misconduct envisages breach of discipline, although
it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and
indiscipline which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether
done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.

In re Tulsidas Amanmal Karim it has been held that any conduct which in any way renders a person
unfit for exercise of his profession or is likely to tamper or embarrass the administration of justice by
the High Court or any other court subordinate thereto may be taken as misconduct.

In the matter of an advocate , if the conduct of an advocate is such as to make him unworthy to
remain a member of the honourable legal profession and unfit to be entrusted with the responsible
duties that an advocate is called upon to perform, he will be guilty of misconduct and may be
punished therefore.

Thus in this case following two tests have been laid down:-
a) The conduct of the advocate is such that he must be regarded as unworthy to remain a member of
the honourable profession.

b) The conduct of the advocate is such that he must be regarded as unfit to be entrusted with the
responsible duties that an advocate is called upon to perform.
These two tests have been interpreted as disjunctive and therefore the fulfilment of any one of the
said conditions would be sufficient to treat the conduct as misconduct.

Some important cases relating to Professional Misconduct

Purchase of the property in dispute of the client
Case: P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti and Anr.
Facts: One Srikishan Dass died leaving behind extensive immovable properties. Claims to the said
properties were made by one Vidyawati claiming to be the sister of the deceased , one Ram Murti
and two others who claimed themselves to be the heir of the deceased.
Later the said properties were purchased by the advocate of Vidyawati knowing them to be disputed.
The advocate thereafter sold the property to a third party and made profit. A complaint was made
against the advocate to the Bar Council of Delhi.

Held: Since the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint
within a period of one year and therefore the proceedings had been transferred to the Bar Council of
India under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India
found him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for period of one year.

Non filing of the case or filing of the case with nominal court fees
Case : Allahabad Bank v. Girish Prasad Verma
Facts: In this case complainant Allahabad Bank filed complaint against the advocate Girish Chandra
Verma alleging that out of the 52 suits which were given to the advocate for filing in the court 50 suits
were filed with nominal court fees and 2 suits were not filed at all and the advocate misappropriated
the sum the sum paid to him by the complainant for the purpose of court fees.
Held : U.P Bar Council disciplinary committee held that the advocate has misappropriated the
amount of the court fees and further ordered for the striking of the name of the advocate from the roll
of the U.P Bar Council. The committee made it clear that legal profession is a noble profession and its
members must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation.

Deliberate delay in filing of the suit

Case: Prof. Krishanraj Goswami v. Vishwanath D. Mukashikar
Facts: In this case the appellant advocate made a delay in filing in filing the suit and also made a
delay in moving the interim application due to which the complainant suffered huge losses. The
complainant gave two written notices to the to the appellant advocate for the return of the papers so
that he could engage separate lawyers but the appellant advocate did not respond. It was also
alleged by the complainant that the advocate did this deliberately in connivance with the other side

Held: the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found him guilty of
professional misconduct and imposed punishment of suspension of licence for three years.

Suppression of material facts with intention to harass poor persons

Case: Smt. Sudesh Rani v. Munish Chandra Goel
Facts: In this case the respondent advocate filed suits for the eviction of the tenants by suppressing
the fact of an earlier compromise decree by which the tenants were declared as owners.The
respondent advocate should have disclosed the material facts since his wife and he himself were
involved in the compromise of the suits.
Held: The respondent advocate was held guilty of having committed professional as well as other
misconduct. The committee ordered that his licence to practice would be suspended for a period of
two years.

Manipulation of the judgement and the decree

Case: Surendra Nath Mittal v. Daya Nand Swaroop
Facts: In this case the respondent advocate made manipulation in the operative part of the
judgement and decree by adding the words “mai sood” i.e including interest. The respondent
advocate however denied the allegation and contended that he had not committed any offence.
Held: The disciplinary committee found the advocate guilty and held that it was the respondent
advocate who had added the words subsequently and that the same amounts to professional
misconduct The committee ordered for his suspension for one year.

Handing over of forged documents to the opposite party

Case: Pratap Narain v. Y.P. Raheja
Facts: In this case the complainant alleged that the respondent handed over him a forged stay order
while no stay order was passed by the court in the case. The respondent however pleaded that the
forged stay order was handed over to the complainant by his clerk.
Held: The committee after examining the facts, evidence etc., held that the respondent was guilty of
professional misconduct of serious nature as he had forged the order of the court. Consequently, the
Disciplinary committee ordered removal of his name from the roll maintained by the Bar Council of
Delhi.
Not appearing before the court deliberately and intentionally
Case: Smt. P. Pankajam v. B.H. Chandrashekhar
Facts: In this case the complainant Smt. Pankajam filed a case against against her advocate alleging
misconduct on his part as after accepting the brief and having received the payment he did not attend
the proceedings and she lost the case.

Held: The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India held that the advocates conduct in not
appearing before the court was an intentional and deliberate act. The committee held the respondent
advocate guilty of profession misconduct and ordered that he be suspended from practice for a period
of two years.

Defrauding the client by exploiting his/her illiteracy

Case: Vikramaditya v. Smt. Jamila Khatoon
The obtaining of the signature by the advocate on blank vakalatnama and blank water marked papers
for the purpose of defrauding the client’s amounts to the professional misconduct.

Advocate actively engaged in carrying other business

Case: Babu Lal Jain v. Subhash Jain
Facts: The complainant was an advocate. He alleged that the respondent advocate was a practising
lawyer as well as was working as an editor, printer, and publisher of a weekly called “Aaj Ki Janata”.
Held: Rule 47 of BCI rules prohibits an advocate to be engaged personally in any business. The
respondent advocate was found to have been actively engaged in carrying on the business and his
conduct was take by the disciplinary committee as profession misconduct.

Advocate attending the court with fire arms

Case: UP Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra
Facts: In the case the advocate was attending the court with licence fire arm for the purpose of self
defence.
Held: It was held that such a conduct was inconsistent with the dignity of legal profession and
amounts to professional misconduct.
Refusal to return the will

Case: John D’souza v. Edward Ani

Facts: In this case the respondent Edward Ani lodged the complaint with the Karnataka Sate Bar
Council alleging that the appellant with whom the will executed by his mother in law Mrs. Mary
Raymond was entrusted with safe custody refuse to return that will in spite of two letters demanding
to hand over the will.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the advocate has committed breach of his professional duty and
found him guilty of profession misconduct.

The Body or Authority empowered to punish for Professional or Other Misconduct

State Bar Council and its Disciplinary Committee
Section 35 : Punishment of Advocates for misconduct
Initiation and Procedure
(1) Where on the receipt of the complaint or otherwise the State Bar Council has reason to believe
that any advocate on roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for
disposal to its disciplinary committee.
(2) Where the case is referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry and disposal, the committee is
required to fix a date for hearing the case and cause a notice to be given to the advocate concerned
and the Advocate General of the state.
Powers
(3) Section 35(3) provides that after giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate General an
opportunity of being heard, the disciplinary committee of the state bar council may make any of the
following orders :-
(a) dismiss the complaint or where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar
Council, direct that the proceedings be filed
(b) reprimand the advocate
(c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates
(4) It is to be noted that where the advocate is suspended from practice under the aforesaid clause
(c), he shall, during the period of suspension , be debarred from practicing in any court or before any
authority or person in India.

Section 41: Alteration in the roll of advocates

Where an order is made reprimanding or suspending an advocate, a record of the punishment shall
be entered against his name in the state roll and where an order is made removing an advocate from
practice , his name shall be struck off the state roll.

Section 36-B: Disposal of disciplinary proceedings

This section provides that the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall dispose of the
complaint received by it under section 35 expeditiously and in each case the proceedings shall be
concluded within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of the
initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, failing
which such proceedings shall stand to the BCI which may dispose of the same as if it were
proceedings withdrawn for inquiry under section 36(2).

Remedy against the order of punishment by the State Bar Council

Section 44: Review of order by disciplinary committee
The disciplinary committee of Bar Council may of its own motion or otherwise review any order, within
60 days of the date of the order passed by it .
However no such order of the review of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall have
effect, unless it has been approved by the Bar Council of India.

Section 37: Appeal to the Bar Council of India

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council made
Under Section 35 or the Advocate General of the State may within 60 days of the date of the
communication of the order to him , prefer an appeal to the Bar Council of India.

(2) Every such appeal shall be heard by the disciplinary committee of the BCI which may pass such
order including order varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar
Council as it deems fit.

(3) No order of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall be varied by the disciplinary
committee of the BCI so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him reasonable
opportunity of being heard.

Bar Council of India and its Disciplinary Committee

Section 36: Disciplinary Powers of Bar Council of India
(1) Where on the receipt of the complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe
that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of profession or other
misconduct , it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.
(2) Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may either on its own motion or on a report by
any State Bar Council or on an application made to it by any person interested, withdraw for inquiry
before itself any any proceedings for disciplinary action against any advocate pending before the
disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council and dispose of the same.

(3) In disposing of the case, the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India shall observe the
procedure laid down in section 35, the reference to the Advocate General in that section being
construed as references to the Attorney General of India.

(4) Where any proceedings have been withdrawn for inquiry before the disciplinary committee of the
Bar Council of India, the State Bar Council concerned shall give effect to any such order.
It also make it clear that in disposing of any proceedings under this section, the disciplinary
committee of the Bar Council of India may make any order which the disciplinary committee of a State
Bar Council can make under sub-section (3) of Section 35.

Remedy against the order of punishment by the Bar Council of India

Section 48-AA: Review
The bar council of India or any of its committee , other than its disciplinary committee , may on its own
motion or otherwise, review any order, within 60 days of the date of that order, passed by it under the
Advocates Act.

Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme Court

Any person aggrieved by an order made by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India
under Section 36 or Section 37 or the Attorney General of India or the Advocate General of the state
concerned, as the case may be , may within 60 days of the date on which the order is communicated
to him, prefer an appeal to the supreme court and the supreme court may pass such order including
an order varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar council of India
thereon as it deems fit.
However no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar council of India shall be varied by the
Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable
opportunity of being heard.

Professional Misconduct vis-a-vis Contempt of Court

• The ambit of contempt proceedings is much wider than proceedings for professional misconduct as
proceedings for professional misconduct can be carried out against the advocate only whereas
contempt proceedings can be initiated against members of bar and bench both.
• In case of contempt of court there is no fixed procedure for initiation or punishment of the
accused/guilty and whereas proceedings in case of professional misconduct are to be carried out as
per the Advocates Act 1966 which lays down a detailed procedure for the same.
• Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act are not applicable in case of proceedings for
contempt of court as these proceedings are carried on the basis of the principles of Natural Justice-
objectivity and fairness respectively.
• In contempt of court proceedings cross examination is allowed in limited cases only.
For example in case of contempt proceedings against R.K Anand, Mr. R.K. Anand was not allowed to
cross examine Ponam Aggarwal who was in charge of the sting operation.
Whereas cross examination is an important aspect of proceedings for professional misconduct.
• The punishment for contempt of court as envisaged in the Contempt of Court Act is also different
from the punishment for professional misconduct as envisaged under Advocates Act, 1966.

It is to be noted that proceedings for contempt and professional misconduct can be carried out
simultaneously.
Case: Suo Motto Enquiry v. Nand Lal Balwani
Facts: The respondent advocate hurled the shoes and shouted slogans in the Supreme Court of
India.Both contempt and proceedings for professional misconduct were initiated against him.
Held: The Supreme Court found him guilty for contempt of court and awarded him a simple
imprisonment for four months and fine of 2000 Rupees.
Further the DC of BCI also found him guilty of professional misconduct and ordered his name to be
removed from the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
****************
# State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2188
# AIR 1941 Bom 228
# AIR 1934 Rang 33
# Civil Appeal No. 15496/1986
# BCI Tr. Case No. 49/1993
# D.C. Appeal No. 40/1995
# BCI Tr. Case No. 43/1996
# BCI Tr. Case No. 63/1987
# BCI Tr. Case No.40/1993
# BCI Tr. Case No.86/1992
# D.C. Appeal No. 21/1996
# BCI Tr. Case No.115/1996
# AIR 1996 SC 98
# AIR 1994 SC 975
# BCI Tr. Case No. 68/1999