Allahabad High Court quashes UP Bar Council order debarring lawyer for a year

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside an order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council (UP Bar Council) against an advocate that prohibited him from practicing in Courts of the District Philibit in the State for one year [Sant Ram Rathod v. UP Bar Council Allahabad And Another].

A Bench of Justices Manjive Shukla and Shekhar B Saraf found that the UP Bar Council had passed the order against the advocate despite being aware of a High Court order by which the Court had accepted his apology and dropped contempt of court proceedings against him.

"Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that once the coordinate Bench of this Court has accepted the apology tendered by the contemnor and dropped the contempt proceedings against him, the matter should have ended there. It is to be further seen that the petitioner specifically was allowed to enter the court premises and resume his practice. Subsequent to the said order passed by the Division Bench, we see no reason for the respondent-authority to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and pass order prohibiting him for practicing in the Court," the Court said in its September 10 order.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by advocate Sant Ram Rathore challenging an order passed by the State Bar Council directing him to discontinue his practice in courts in Pilibhit district for a year.

The Court noted that the same matter had been taken up by another Division Bench of the High Court which had condoned Rathod's misconduct after accepting his apology.

However, that Bench had noted that contempt proceedings had been initiated against Rathod on previous two occasions as well.

Therefore, it had cautioned him to be careful. It had also stated that Rathod's conduct shall remain on the concerned District Judge's watch for a period of two years.

In view of that decision, the Court in its September 10 order held that further proceedings should not have been continued by the UP Bar Council.

"Needless to mention that if the petitioner had once again committed any misconduct, action could have been taken, however for the same misconduct which has been condoned by the High Court, further proceedings should not have been continued by the Bar Council", the Court added.

Therefore, it granted relief to Rathod and set aside the State Bar Council's order.

"We make it clear that in the event, petitioner once again commits any misconduct, the Bar Council of U.P. shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law," the Court clarified.

Senior Advocate Pavan Kumar Pandey and advocate Ashok Kumar Rai appeared for Sant Ram Rathod.

Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari represented the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council.

[Read Order]