Disciplinary proceedings transferred to BCI under S. 36B(1) of Advocates Act cannot be sent back to State Bar Council

The Supreme Court has held that when a disciplinary proceeding before a State Bar Council gets transferred to Bar Council of India (BCI) under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI cannot send it back to the State Bar Council with a direction to decide it within a stipulated time..The judgment was delivered by Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar in a case from Gujarat. Advocate Preet Pal Singh appeared for the BCI while advocate DN Ray appeared for Gujarat State Bar Council..The case is based on a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Gujarat Bar Council against the appellant, Ajitsinh based on a complaint by another lawyer and a letter allegedly written by the Registrar of the High Court. The Gujarat Bar Council took cognizance of the same and registered two cases against the appellant. While order was passed in one of them, the proceedings in the other could not be completed within the stipulated time whereupon it was transferred to the BCI..The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI, after hearing Ajitsinh remanded the matter back to the Bar Council of Gujarat with a direction to dispose of the case within a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant moved the Supreme Court..Interestingly, in Supreme Court the BCI took the stand that it has no power to transfer the proceeding back to the State Bar Council, while the Gujarat Bar Council took the opposite stand..In its judgment, the Court framed the issue as follows:.“The singular issue that is required to be addressed in this appeal is whether after transfer of a disciplinary proceeding, as per the mandate enshrined under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, “the Act”) to the Bar Council of India (BCI) from the State Bar Council, can the BCI, instead of enquiring into the complaint and adjudicating thereon, send it back to the State Bar Council with the direction to decide the controversy within a stipulated time.”.Section 36B states the following:.“Disposal of disciplinary proceedings- (1) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and in each cash the proceedings shall be concluded within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, failing which such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India which may dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under sub section (2) of section 36.”.The Court held that the language of Section 36B(1) makes it clear that if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded by the State Bar Council within a particular time, it will stands transferred to the BCI which is then obliged to cause an enquiry and it cannot remand the same back to the State Car Council..“When the language employed under Section 36B(1) and Section 36 are read in juxtaposition, there remains no scintilla of doubt that the legislature desired that the disciplinary proceedings are to be put an end to within a particular time frame by the State Bar Council and if that is not done, the whole thing gets transferred to the BCI, which is obliged to cause an enquiry. Thus understood, there can be no trace of doubt that the original jurisdiction to deal with the complaint stands transferred to the BCI. Once the original 20 jurisdiction is transferred, to rely upon the language that the BCI may dispose of would include any manner of disposal which would include a remand, cannot be thought of. That is neither the legislative intendment nor the legislative purpose..The legislature, as we find, never intended a complaint made against an Advocate either from the perspective of the complainant or from the delinquent to be transferred to BCI, again to be sent back.”.It, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the BCI to decide the matter within three months..Read judgment below.