The Supreme Court has held that as per Section 36(B) of the Advocates Act, State Bar Councils must decide on disciplinary proceedings against lawyers within one year..A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar and Mohan Shantanagoudar was hearing an appeal in a case involving a lawyer from Uttar Pradesh..By way of background, advocate Sudhir Yadav had taken original certificates, photographs, and the signature of the appellant on some blank papers on the pretext that he would register her name with the Employment Exchange. After a dispute between the two, the advocate allegedly threatened the family members of the appellants, demanding a sum of one lakh rupees..Subsequently, the advocate filed an application in the name of the appellant, along with a forged caste certificate mentioning her as his wife. He also registered criminal cases against the appellant and others..In response to this, the appellant lodged a complaint with the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council, which placed the matter before its Disciplinary Committee on December 18, 2005. The Committee held against the advocate on December 23, 2006 and awarded him a punishment as per Section 35(3) of the Act, thereby striking his name from the State roll of advocates..This order was then challenged before the Bar Council of India, which allowed the appeal and set aside the punishment awarded. The BCI held that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council could not have proceeded with the inquiry after lapse of one year, in view of Section 36-B of the Act..It was also found that a false order sheet had been prepared by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and that the decision was made by a one-member committee. Moreover, the respondent advocate was not given a fair opportunity to be heard..The Supreme Court upheld the BCI’s decision, stating,.“However, the mandate of Section 36-B of the Act is that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council is obliged to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and in each case, the proceedings must be concluded by it 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 the State Bar Council is obliged to transfer the inquiry to the Bar Council of India.”.The apex court also held that all pending criminal cases instituted by the advocate against the appellant and her family members would stand quashed..Read the judgment:
The Supreme Court has held that as per Section 36(B) of the Advocates Act, State Bar Councils must decide on disciplinary proceedings against lawyers within one year..A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar and Mohan Shantanagoudar was hearing an appeal in a case involving a lawyer from Uttar Pradesh..By way of background, advocate Sudhir Yadav had taken original certificates, photographs, and the signature of the appellant on some blank papers on the pretext that he would register her name with the Employment Exchange. After a dispute between the two, the advocate allegedly threatened the family members of the appellants, demanding a sum of one lakh rupees..Subsequently, the advocate filed an application in the name of the appellant, along with a forged caste certificate mentioning her as his wife. He also registered criminal cases against the appellant and others..In response to this, the appellant lodged a complaint with the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council, which placed the matter before its Disciplinary Committee on December 18, 2005. The Committee held against the advocate on December 23, 2006 and awarded him a punishment as per Section 35(3) of the Act, thereby striking his name from the State roll of advocates..This order was then challenged before the Bar Council of India, which allowed the appeal and set aside the punishment awarded. The BCI held that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council could not have proceeded with the inquiry after lapse of one year, in view of Section 36-B of the Act..It was also found that a false order sheet had been prepared by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and that the decision was made by a one-member committee. Moreover, the respondent advocate was not given a fair opportunity to be heard..The Supreme Court upheld the BCI’s decision, stating,.“However, the mandate of Section 36-B of the Act is that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council is obliged to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and in each case, the proceedings must be concluded by it 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 the State Bar Council is obliged to transfer the inquiry to the Bar Council of India.”.The apex court also held that all pending criminal cases instituted by the advocate against the appellant and her family members would stand quashed..Read the judgment: