Bar councils must guard professional ethics: SC

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, JULY 26. ``Since the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961, have been entrusted with the duty of guarding professional ethics, they have to be more sensitive to the potential disrepute on account of action of a few `black sheep' which may shake the credibility of the profession and thereby put at stake other members of the bar'', the Supreme Court has cautioned.

``The credibility of a (professional) council including its `disciplinary body' in respect of any profession - whether it is law, medicine, accountancy or any other vocation - depends upon how they deal with cases of delinquency involving serious misconduct which has a tendency to erode the credibility and reputation of the said profession'' and ``the punishment, of course, has to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct'', the Bench said.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, on the facts and circumstances of the case, restored the original order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) dated July 31, 1999, which directed that the respondent-Advocate's name be struck off from the Advocates roll maintained by the Rajasthan BC. This BCI order also imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the respondent.

The appellant's complaint against the respondent- advocate before the Rajasthan BC was that the respondent - an advocate of about 50 years standing in the profession - while appearing as a counsel in a civil suit, wrote a letter to his (advocate's) client requiring him (client) to send Rs. 10,000 for payment as `bribe' to the judge concerned.

The Rajasthan BC, after due inquiry, held the advocate guilty of `misconduct' under Section 35 of the 1961 Act and suspended him from practice for two years with effect from June 15, 1997.

On appeal from the advocate, the disciplinary committee of the BCI, by its order dated July 31, 1999, enhanced the punishment and debarred him permanently from practice.

Later, on a `review petition' from the advocate, the BCI, by its order dated June 4, 2000, modified the earlier punishment (of debarring him from practice) by substituting it with one of `reprimanding' him.

Allowing an appeal from the appellant, the Bench which included Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, had ``no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order (of the BCI) dated June 4, 2000, and restoring the original order of BCI dated July 31, 1999.''

``The earlier order (of BCI dated July 31 1999) had taken into consideration all relevant factors for coming to the conclusion that the advocate was totally unfit to be a lawyer having written such a letter and punishment lesser than debarring him permanently cannot be imposed'' the Bench held.

The exercise of ``power of review does not empower a disciplinary committee to modify the earlier order passed by another disciplinary committee taking a different view of the same set of facts'', the Bench added.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Selected for Prem Bhatia Award
Next     : Expedite process of filling judges' vacancies:
           Centre