SHAMBHU RAM YADAV vs.

HANUM DAS KHATRY

FACTS

The fact of this case is that the Respondent Advocate while representing the client Mahant
Rajgiri in a civil suit wrote a letter to him stating that the concerned judge accepts bribe and he
has obtained several favourable orders from him in his favour. He asked him to send Rs. 10,000
so as to influence judge through some gentleman. The letter also mentioned that if Mahant can
personally influence judge then he would not have to pay the requisite sum.

The complaint filed on the basis of the content of this letter against the respondent Advocate
before the Disciplinary Committee of the Rajasthan State Bar Council. The respondent
Advocate did not contend the contents of the letter and hence held guilty of professional
misconduct resulted into suspension from practicing for a period of 2 years. The appeal filed
before the Bar Council of India where the punishment was further enhanced and his name was
permanently struck off from the roll of advocates.

A review petition was filed against this order which changed his punishment substituting with
reprimanding him instead of permanent disbarred on the contention that the respondent Advocate
had no intention to bribe the judge.

Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES

1. Whether the decision against review petition was on the correct grounds?

ARGUMENTS

Appellant:

The contention was that the power of review had not been exercised by applying well settled
principles governing the exercise of such power. The grounds on which review was allowed
were already taken into consideration by the earlier committee and hence the original order has
been reviewed on non-existent grounds.

JUDGEMENTS

The division bench of the Supreme Court comprises of Hon’ble Justices K. T. Thomas and Y. K.
Sabharwal which held that the review order was based on baseless ground and without any
hesitance they set aside the order passed in review and upheld the original order of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.

REASONING

The decision of the Court was based on the reasoning that it is the duty of the bar councils to
ensure that all advocates follow all required standards of practice and on failure, take all due and
appropriate action against them.  The credibility of a council including its disciplinary body in
respect of any profession whether it is law, medicine, accountancy or any other vocation depends
upon how they deal with cases of delinquency involving serious misconduct which has a
tendency to erode the credibility and reputation of the said profession. The punishment, of
course, has to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

The Court went on to state on record that the legal profession is not a trade or business but a
noble profession and members belonging to this profession have not to encourage dishonesty and
corruption at any level. They have to strive to secure justice to their clients by following due
procedure of law and not by becoming the part of wrongdoings. The act of the advocates decide
the credibility and reputation of the profession and therefore, bar councils have been vested
under the Advocates Act, 1961 to take disciplinary action when the credibility and reputation of
the profession comes under a clout on account of acts of omission and commission by any
member of the profession.

On the basis of this reasoning, the Court also made remark that they do not know how the
Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent `had no intention to bribe the judge'.
There is nothing on the record to suggest it. The earlier order had taken into consideration all
relevant factors for coming to the conclusion that the advocate was totally unfit to be a lawyer
having written such a letter and punishment lesser than debarring him permanently cannot be
imposed. The exercise of power of review does not empower a Disciplinary Committee to
modify the earlier order passed by another Disciplinary Committee taking a different view of the
same set of facts.