1998 (10) TMI 554 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes Bar Council notice for lack of reasonable basis. Importance of prima facie case highlighted.

L. Dakshinamoor Versus Bar Council of Tamil Nadu

The court quashed the notice issued by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, finding that there was no reasonable basis to believe that the petitioner was guilty ... - Issues Involved:1. Issuance of notice by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu under Rule 5 in Chapter - 1 part VII read with Sec 35/36 of the Advocates Act, 1961.2. Allegation of professional misconduct against the petitioner.3. Application of mind by the Bar Council before issuing the notice.4. Definition and scope of 'misconduct' under the Advocates Act.5. The role and duties of the Bar Council in disciplinary proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Issuance of Notice by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu:The petitioner filed a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice issued by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The notice was issued under Rule 5 in Chapter - 1 part VII read with Sec 35/36 of the Advocates Act, 1961, based on a complaint alleging professional misconduct.2. Allegation of Professional Misconduct:The complaint arose from a family dispute involving the petitioner, who was an advocate and closely connected to the family. The petitioner was asked to coordinate with an appointed Arbitrator. The complaint stated that the petitioner failed to obtain signatures on a settlement deed for nearly two years, lost the last page of the deed, added two clauses without consent, and returned the document with a photocopied last page. The complainant alleged that the petitioner acted without authority and did not return the document intact, thus warranting proceedings against him.3. Application of Mind by the Bar Council:The petitioner contended that the Bar Council did not apply its mind before issuing the notice. The Bar Council must have a reason to believe that an advocate is guilty of professional misconduct before referring the case to the Disciplinary Committee. The petitioner argued that the Bar Council failed to establish a prima facie case of misconduct and acted irrationally in issuing the notice.4. Definition and Scope of 'Misconduct' under the Advocates Act:The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in *Bar Council, Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar*, which emphasized the Bar Council's duty to maintain professional conduct standards. The court also cited *V. Dakshinamoorthy v. The Commission of Inquiry*, which defined 'misconduct' as improper conduct judged by the Bar Council. The court reiterated that not every misconduct qualifies as professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.5. The Role and Duties of the Bar Council in Disciplinary Proceedings:The Bar Council's role includes receiving complaints, forming a reasonable belief of misconduct, and referring cases to the Disciplinary Committee. The court highlighted that the Bar Council must apply its mind and ensure that there is a prima facie case before proceeding. The court found that the Bar Council failed to establish that the petitioner acted as an advocate or engaged in professional misconduct. The petitioner was merely a coordinator and not engaged as a counsel by any party, thus no advocate-client relationship existed.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Bar Council acted irrationally and without proper application of mind in issuing the notice. The court quashed the notice, stating that there was no reasonable basis to believe that the petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct. The revision petition was allowed, and the notice issued by the Bar Council was quashed.