"Witch hunt against advocates": Bombay High Court stays Bar Council disciplinary proceedings against government pleader Geeta Shashtri

The Bombay High Court on Friday stayed an order passed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) initiating disciplinary proceedings against government pleader Geeta Shashtri..A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale also directed that any consequential proceedings which may arise out of the order will be stayed till April 12. The BCMG had been approached with a complaint by a lawyer claiming Shashtri had committed forgery and perjury by putting signatures on certain documents attached to an affidavit.The division bench asked whether the BCMG had initiated a ‘witch hunt’ against all advocates. "Has the Bar Council initiated a witch hunt against advocates? On the basis of the annexures there is a complaint that there is no practice note and but an order. And basis that there is disciplinary proceedings. These are people in government service! We will stay it, we will order a stay on the proceedings. Some complainant has claimed contempt and perjury… Why is the Bar council getting into this against its own advocates?” the Court asked. .The government pleader moved the Court through advocate Akshay Shinde challenging an order of the single member committee of the BCMG relegating the matter to a disciplinary committee under the Bar Council of India. Her petition stated that in a suit against the State government, a written statement had been filed where certain documents had been annexed. The documents had been signed as true copies by another government lawyer. Shashtri meanwhile had signed the written statement which had the annexures appended.The lawyer opposing the State government took objection to the ‘true copy sign’ and filed an application before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, alleging perjury and forgery against Shashtri. In the affidavit filed in response to the complaint, Shashtri at the outset pointed out that the suit before the City Civil Court had been transferred from the High Court. She further pointed out that the true copy signatures were a requirement of the High Court as per a practice note (procedure guidelines issued by the High Court for filing proceedings).The lawyer claimed that there is no such practice note.Shashtri responded by stating that it was a ‘practice’ which was followed in the High Court pursuant to a judicial order.Unsatisfied with this explanation, the lawyer filed a complaint before the BCMG.After an order was passed by the BCMG requesting the disciplinary proceedings to initiate enquiry, Shashtri approached the High Court challenging the same. .She pointed out that since there were forgery proceedings pending before the City Civil Court it was appropriate for the Bar Council to not adjudicate on the issue. “What was she (Shashtri) supposed to do? She followed procedure as per high court order. Every advocate is to certify annexures. It is a practice, call it a tradition!” the Bench added..The Court granted leave to Shashtri to amend her petition and add Bar Council of India as a party to the proceedings and issued notice to the BCI.It posted the matter for final hearing on April 12.