Lalit Mohan Das vs.

Advocate General, Orissa and

Another; AIR 1957 SC 250

• FORUM: Supreme Court of India

• CITATION: 1957 AIR 250, 1957 SCR 167
• DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29 November, 1956
• Author: S Das
• JUDGES BENCH : Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati,
Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha,
Bhuvneshwar P., Das, S.K.
• LAWS APPLIED: Sec 13, 14 Of the Legal Practitioners
Act, 1879
• PARTIES:
Petitioner: Lalit Mohan Das
Respondent: Advocate General, Orissa and Another
CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Facts of the case
2. Issues involved in the case
3. Contention of Parties in respect of the
issues
4. Judgement of the court
5. Analysis of the case
6. Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION

The appellant pleader who already had strained relation with the
Munsif made certain objectionable remarks in open
Court,suggesting partiality and unfairness on the part the
Munsif.
The Munsif drew up a proceeding under ss. 13, ss. 14 Of the
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, against th pleader and submitted
a report to the High Court through the District judge.
An application to the Additional District judge was filed by the
pleader, for time to move the High Court to get an order to have
the matter heard by some judicial Officer other than the 168
Munsif who had made the report. One month's time was
accordingly granted, and for some reason which is not very
apparent, the Additional District judge sent the record back to the
Munsif. The Additional District judge made an effort to settle
the trouble. It was arranged that the pleader should apologise
and a resolution should be passed by the members of the local
Bar Association. Accordingly, the pleader appeared in the
Court of the Munsif and filed a written apology and expressed
his regret, and the Munsif dropped the proceeding. It was later
found that the resolution was not passed in the terms suggested
by the Additional District judge, and the terms of settlement
suggested by the latter were not fully carried out. Accordingly,
the proceeding was re-opened and the report was resubmitted to
the District judge who with his opinion forwarded the same to
the High Court. The High Court suspended the pleader for 5
years.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no
valid reason for reviving the proceeding, after it had once been
dropped on the submission of an apology and expression of
regret.
Held, that the report under s. 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act is
a report which is submitted to the High Court. When a report is
made to the High Court by any Civil judge subordinate to the
District judge, the report shall be made through the District
judge and the report must be accompanied by the opinion of
such judge. Once the report has been made, it is not open to the
District judge to send back the record to the Subordinate Civil
judge, and no order passed by the Subordinate Civil judge can
have the effect of terminating or bringing to an end the
proceeding. The High Court alone is competent to pass final
orders on the report.
A member of the Bar is an officer of the Court, and though he
owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that
can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client, he
also owes a duty to the Court and must uphold the dignity and
decorum of the Court in which he is
appearing. Making amputations of partiality and unfairness
against the subordinate Civil judge in open Court is
scandalizing the Court in such a way as to pollute the very fount
of justice ; such conduct is not a matter between an individual
member of the Bar and a member of the judicial Service.
With regard to disciplinary action against a member of the Bar,
the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere with the order
of the High Court unless there are clear mitigating
circumstances.
Facts of The Case:

The Munsif in this case drew up proceeding against a legal petitioner

under section 13, 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. After concluding
the enquiry, the Munsif submitted his report to the High Court through
the District Judge.The legal practitioner filed an application to the
Additional District Judge asking for granting him some time so that he
could move to the High Court to get an order to have the matter heard
by some other judicial officer. One month’s time was accordingly
granted and the Additional District Judge sent the record back to the
Munsif.
The Additional District Judge in the meantime made an effort to smooth
over the trouble. As per the terms of settlement suggested by the
Additional District Judge the legal practitioner appear in the Court of
the Munsif and filed a written apology and expressed his regret. The
proceeding against him was thereupon dropped.Subsequently the
Munsif expressed the view that the terms of the settlement suggested
by Additional District Judge were not fully carried out. The proceeding
was, therefore, re-opened and the record re-submitted to the District
Judge.
The District Judge thereupon sent the report of the Munsif to the High
Court accompanied by his opinion.On the contention by the legal
practitioner that there was no valid reason for reviving the proceeding
against the legal practitioner after the proceeding had been dropped by
the Munisf on his filing a written apology and expressing regret.
The high court Held that the order passed by the Munsif dropping
proceeding against the legal practitioner had not the effect of
terminating and bringing to an end the proceeding against him. The
report of the Munsif, was a report which was submitted to the High
Court. Under the provisions of section 14, Legal Practitioners Act such
a report had to be forwarded to the High Court by the district Jude
accompanied by his opinion. It was not open to the Additional District
Judge to send back the record to the Munsif. After the Munsif had made
his report to the High Court, the High Court alone was competent to
pass final orders in the matter. A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes
a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly
and reasonable be submitted on the behalf of his client. He may even
subject that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of
that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the
Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must
uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything
to being the court itself into disrepute.
Where a legal practitioner imputed partiality and unfairness against the
Munsif in open Court and suggested that the Munsif followed no
principle in his order. Held, that the legal practitioner was guilty of
grave professional misconduct. He grossly overstepped the limits when
he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in
open Court. Scandalizing the Court in such manner was really polluting
very fount of justice; such conduct was not a meter between an
individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service
alone; it brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice.

Issues involved in the case

1. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March
15/23, 1955 of the Orissa High Court, in Civil Reference No, 4 of 1954,
N.C. Chatterji, D.N. Mukherjee and R. Patinaik, for the appellant.
2. The appellant pleader who already had strained relation with the Munsif
made certain objectionable remarks in open Court, suggesting partiality
and unfairness on the part of the Munsif.
3. The Munsif drew up a proceeding under ss. 13,14 Of the Legal
Practitioners Act, 1879, against the pleader and submitted a report to
the High Court through the District. The Munsif drew up a proceeding
under ss. 13, 14 Of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, against the pleader
and submitted a report to the High Court through the District judge.
4. The Additional District judge made an effort to settle the trouble. It was
arranged that the pleader should apologise and a resolution should be
passed by the members of the local Bar Association.
5. Accordingly, the pleader appeared in the Court of the Munsif and filed
a written apology and expressed his regret, and the Munsif dropped the
proceeding.
6. It was later found that the resolution was not passed in the terms
suggested by the Additional District judge, and the terms of settlement
suggested by the latter were not fully carried out.
7. Accordingly, the proceeding was re-opened and the report was
resubmitted to the District judge who with his opinion forwarded the
same to the High Court.
8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no valid
reason for reviving the proceeding, after it had once been dropped on
the submission of an apology and expression of regret.
9. Further, Shri Lalit Mohan Das obtained special leave from the Supreme
Court to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa High
Court.

Contention of Parties in respect of the issues

1. The Munsif of Anandapur, Shri L. B. N. S. Deo' drew up a

proceeding under ss. 13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879,
against the pleader for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of
his professional duty and submitted a report to the High Court
through the District Judge of Mayurbhanj on December 12, 1953.
 The District Judge forwarded the report, accompanied by his
opinion, to the High Court of Orissa on March 9, 1954.
2. On November 3, 1954, the appellant denied the allegations made and
took up the attitude that the Munsif was not competent to hold the
enquiry on the ground that the Munsif was in the position of a
complainant.
3. The District Judge, however, took the view that under the provisions
of ss. 13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act the enquiry should be
made by the Munsif himself and the records were accordingly sent
back to the Munsif.
4. The recommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should be
suspended from practice for one year.
5. The reference was heard by the High Court of Orissa' and by its order
dated March 15, 1955, the High Court came to the conclusion that
the pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct and
suspended him from practice for a period of five years with effect
from March 15,1955,
6. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no valid
reason for reviving the proceeding, after it had once been dropped
on the submission of an apology and expression of regret on his
behalf.
7. Shri Lalit Mohan Das then obtained special leave from this Court
(SC) to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa High
Court dated March 15 /23, 1955. He also filed a petition under Art.
32 of the Constitution. We proceed now to deal with the appeal
which has been brought to the Supreme Court on special leave.

Judgement of the court

• The Honourable Supreme Court Held, that the report

under s. 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act is a report
which is submitted to the High Court. When a
 report is made to the High Court by any civil judge subordinate to
the District judge, the report shall be made through the District judge
and the report must be accompanied by the opinion of such judge.
• Once the report has been made, it is not open to the District judge to
send back the record to the Subordinate Civil judge, and no order
passed by the Subordinate Civil judge can have the effect of
terminating or bringing to an end the proceeding. The High Court
alone is competent to pass final orders on the report.
• A member of the Bar is an officer of the Court, and though he owes
a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly
and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client, he also owes a
duty to the Court and must uphold the dignity and decorum of the
Court in which he is appearing. Making amputations of partiality and
unfairness against the subordinate Civil judge in open
Court is scandalizing the Court in such a way as to pollute the very
fount of justice; such conduct is not a matter between an individual
member of the Bar and a member of the judicial Service.
• With regard to disciplinary action against a member of the Bar, the
Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere with the order of the
High Court unless there are clear mitigating circumstances.
• There were, however, two mitigating circumstances. One was that
the learned Munsif himself recommended suspension of practice for
one year only. The appellant was suspended from practice with
affect, from March 15, 1955. The order of suspension had now lasted
for little more than a year and eight months.
• The second mitigating circumstance was that the appellant did file a
written apology and expressed regret to the learned Munsif on
January 8, 1954. It is unfortunate that the appellant did not take up a
more contrite (apologetic) attitude in the High Court.
• In the Supreme Court, however, the appellant tried to make out that
the proceeding against him should not have been revived; he
however showed his willingness to offer an apology and expression
of regret. Having regard to all the circumstances, the court was of
the opinion that the punishment imposed by the Honourable High
Court is on the side of excess. The Honourable Supreme Court
accordingly reduced the period of suspension to, two years only.
• In the result, the petition, under Art. 32, was dismissed and the
appeal was also dismissed subject to the reduction of the period of
 suspension as indicated above. In the circumstances of this case,
there was no order for costs and the appeal was dismissed.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

• The appellant was guilty of grave professional misconduct. Since, a

member of the Bar owes a duty, to his client and must present all that
can reasonably be submitted on their behalf to the Court. He may ask
for a review of an order if he feels that the order is not correct. A
member of the bar is an officer of the Court, and owes a duty to the
Court in which he is appearing. He must maintain the high standards
of the Court and avoid any actions that could discredit the Court
itself.
• The appellant however grossly overstepped the bounds of propriety
when he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the
Munsif in open Court. The appellant suggests that the Munsif
followed no principle when issuing his orders, which is an insult to
the Munsif because he merely upheld an order from his predecessor
on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees.
• The appellant's actions in scaring the court are really damaging to
the very source of justice. This kind of conduct is not something that
happens between an individual member of the Bar and a judicial
service member; it brings the entire system into disrepute.
• The appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his version
of the incidents, though he had the opportunity to do so if he desired.
It is unfortunate that the appellant did not take up a more repentant
attitude in the High Court.
• In the Honourable Supreme Court, the appellant tried to make out
that the proceeding against him should not have been revived, but he
showed his willingness to offer an apology and express regret.
Having considered all the circumstances, the court was of the
opinion that the punishment imposed is on the side of excess.
Therefore, the court accordingly reduced the period of suspension to,
two years only.
Conclusion

• A well-organized system of judicial administration postulates a

properly equipped and efficient bar. Legal Profession has played a
significant role in safeguarding the life, liberty and property of the
citizens. It has been instrumental in upholding the values which are
very essential for the growth of a free and democratic society and
that the Constitution also recognizes the important role that is played
by the legal profession. A well-knit structure of legal profession
plays a pivotal role of strengthening the system of administrative
justice in the country. It is axiomatic that a properly equipped and
efficient Bar can play a pre-eminent role not only in
the system of justice but also in the constitutional government and
rule of law.
• Thus, legal profession is a profession of great honour. It has been
created for public good and maintaining peace and order in the
society. The Supreme Court has rightly observed that the legal
profession is a partner with the judiciary in the administration of
justice.
• This judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court time and again
brings light to the fact that there is an urgent need for the legal
profession to become people oriented and to reorient themselves
towards the service of people. They must show recognition of what
is meant by the service ethics of dealing with the need of a fellow
human being’s need without consideration of self-interest. Lawyers
must serve as healers not makers of human conflict and suffering.