1983 (10) TMI 225 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Disciplinary Order, Stresses Professional Ethics

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Disciplinary Committee's order and dropping the proceedings against the appellant and Agavane. The ... Whether there was any evidence upon which the Disciplinary Committee could reasonably find that they have been guilty of 'professional misconduct, within the meaning of sub-s. of s. 35 of the Act? Whether the finding of the Disciplinary Committee as to professional misconduct on the part of the appellant can be legally sustained. Held that:- The appeal partly succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding the appellant and A.N. Agavane guilty of professional misconduct is set aside. The proceedings drawn against them under sub-s. (1) of s. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 are dropped. Issues Involved:1. Professional Misconduct Allegations2. Specific Charges of Improper Legal Advice3. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings4. Conduct of the Complainants and the Bar Association5. Professional Ethics and ToutingIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Professional Misconduct Allegations:The disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint by 12 advocates alleging professional misconduct against the appellant and another advocate, Agavane. The Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee found both guilty of professional misconduct and imposed suspensions. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal and stayed the suspension order.2. Specific Charges of Improper Legal Advice:The charges included:- On January 7, 1974, the appellant and Agavane allegedly facilitated an illegal remarriage by misleading the couple about the legal validity of their divorce and marriage.- On February 22, 1974, they advised Smt. Sonubai to avoid paying proper stamp duty and registration charges for a land gift, which was improper legal advice.The Disciplinary Committee found them guilty of giving improper legal advice but not of cheating their clients. It noted that the affidavit and marriage certificate issued were not sufficient proof of marriage, and the affidavit for the land gift was not a substitute for a gift deed.3. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings:The Supreme Court emphasized that findings in disciplinary proceedings must be sustained by a higher degree of proof than in civil suits but less than in criminal prosecutions. It found that the evidence did not convincingly prove professional misconduct. The Court noted that:- The affidavit for the remarriage was likely prepared on the couple's instructions, and there was no clear evidence of moral delinquency.- The evidence regarding the land gift advice was inconclusive, particularly as Smt. Sonubai could not identify the appellant.4. Conduct of the Complainants and the Bar Association:The complainants, members of the Poona Collectorate Bar Association, were criticized for employing touts to procure work, which itself amounted to professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee noted that the appellant and Agavane were junior lawyers who did not join the association and practiced independently, which may have led to the complaints against them.5. Professional Ethics and Touting:The judgment emphasized the importance of professional ethics, stating that advocates must act with utmost good faith towards their clients. The Court condemned the practice of touting and urged the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to take strong action against it. It also called for better training and support for junior lawyers to maintain high standards of professional conduct.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Disciplinary Committee's order and dropping the proceedings against the appellant and Agavane. The Court expressed hope that they would adhere to professional ethics in the future and highlighted the need for organized efforts to support junior lawyers and eradicate touting.Order:There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.