1970 (9) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns advocate's suspension in misconduct case, emphasizing professional ethics and fair treatment.

The Supreme Court reviewed a case involving an advocate accused of tearing pieces from a judicial record, leading to a professional misconduct allegation ... - Issues Involved:1. Professional Misconduct Allegation2. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council3. Reconsideration of Disciplinary Committee's Decision4. Validity of Section 38 of the Advocates Act5. Review Petition and Fresh EvidenceIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Professional Misconduct Allegation:The appellant, an advocate, was accused of professional misconduct for allegedly tearing two pieces of paper from a judicial record (Exhibit C-I) during an inspection. This incident was reported by a clerk, Amrik Singh, to the District Judge, leading to a complaint and subsequent disciplinary action by the Bar Council of Delhi. The appellant was found guilty and suspended from practice for a year. He appealed to the Bar Council of India and later to the Supreme Court, both of which dismissed his appeals.2. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council:The Bar Council of India initially refused to review the matter, stating it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the case. However, they expressed uneasiness due to fresh material, including a photostat of the document, suggesting a possible different outcome if reconsidered. The Supreme Court concluded that the Bar Council acted correctly in not reviewing the matter themselves, as it would be an exercise of appellate power, which they do not possess. However, they were right in recommending reconsideration to their Disciplinary Committee.3. Reconsideration of Disciplinary Committee's Decision:The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India declined to reopen the case despite fresh evidence. They held that their order had merged with the Supreme Court's decision, making a review by them incompetent. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, noting the committee's reluctance to objectively reassess the case and their intent to reaffirm their previous decision.4. Validity of Section 38 of the Advocates Act:The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Section 38 of the Advocates Act and Rule 7 of Order V of the Supreme Court Rules, arguing they were ultra vires Article 138(2) of the Constitution. The High Court and later the Supreme Court dismissed these challenges, upholding the validity of the provisions.5. Review Petition and Fresh Evidence:The appellant filed multiple review petitions and writ petitions, presenting fresh evidence, including a photostat of the torn document. The Supreme Court eventually allowed the appellant to take photostats of Exhibit C-I. The fresh evidence suggested that the torn pieces did not contain any significant writing, contradicting the initial allegations. The Supreme Court noted the lack of corroboration and the possibility of hostility against the appellant due to his aggressive actions in other cases.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, after considering the fresh evidence and the unanimous opinion of the Bar Council of India and the Bar Association of the Supreme Court, found that the charge of deliberately and wantonly mutilating the document was not satisfactorily proven. They granted the review, set aside the order disbarring the appellant from practice, and emphasized the importance of professional ethics and the reputation of the legal profession. The court highlighted that justice must be served, and technical rules should not prevent the correction of a manifest wrong.