Professional misconduct by advocates can arise from unjustified adjournments that delay witness examination and justify disciplinary scrutiny.

Repeated and unjustified adjournments sought by advocates to avoid cross-examining a witness present in court can amount to professional misconduct because an advocate must facilitate, not obstruct, the administration of justice. The text also states that the disciplinary threshold of "reason to believe" is meant to screen out frivolous complaints, not to block genuine grievances. On the facts alleged, the complaint disclosed a strong prima facie case for disciplinary scrutiny, so refusal by the Bar Councils to proceed was unsustainable and the matter had to be referred for disciplinary inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether repeated adjournments sought by advocates to avoid cross-examining a witness present in court amounted to professional misconduct; (ii) Whether the complaint made out a prima facie case warranting referral to the disciplinary machinery under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether repeated adjournments sought by advocates to avoid cross-examining a witness present in court amounted to professional misconduct.

Analysis: The duty of an advocate is to facilitate the administration of justice and not to obstruct it. Seeking adjournments when witnesses are present in court, without any unavoidable necessity and without making alternate arrangements, causes unnecessary hardship and harassment to the witness. Repeated resort to such tactics is a dereliction of professional duty and may constitute misconduct within the wide meaning of the expression under the statutory scheme governing advocates.

Conclusion: Yes. Such conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint made out a prima facie case warranting referral to the disciplinary machinery under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expression "reason to believe" in the disciplinary provision operates as a safeguard against frivolous complaints and not as a procedural barrier to genuine grievances. On the facts alleged, the complaint disclosed a strong prima facie case for disciplinary scrutiny. The refusal by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India to proceed was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: Yes. The complaint had to be referred for disciplinary inquiry.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary orders were set aside and the complaint was directed to be proceeded with by the appropriate disciplinary authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated and unjustified adjournments sought by advocates to delay the examination of a witness present in court can amount to professional misconduct, and a genuine complaint disclosing such conduct must be forwarded for disciplinary inquiry when it is not frivolous.

---