Allahabad High Court Sets Aside UP Bar Council Ex-Parte Order Suspending Lawyer Accused Of Bigamy For 10 Years

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus:

"The show cause notice was issued on February 17, 2025 for appearance on March 10, 2025 and impugned order was passed on February 23, 2025 which makes it evident that the impugned order is passed ex parte without granting any opportunity of hearing which is violative of the principle of natural justice".

Petitioner approached the High Court against the order of the UP Bar Council suspending his licence to practice for 10 years, thereby barring him from appearing before any Court of law in India. He pleaded that he was not convicted of bigamy under any law and even if he had committed the same, it would not come under the ambit of moral turpitude.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in P. Mohanasudaram v. The President of the Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi, and Another, which held that bigamy constitutes moral turpitude.

The Court observed

"The term 'Moral turpitude' has a wide connotation which includes demeanor and of course includes duties of the advocate which are defined under the Bar Council of India Rules. Every profession is governed by a set of rules, similarly law, being a noble profession, is governed by Bar Council of India Rules formed under Advocates Act, 1961".

It relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SBI v. P. Soupramaniane, wherein it was held that to judge the offence of moral turpitude, one must see whether the act was such that it shocks the conscience of society, the motive behind the act and whether the accused would be looked down upon by society once the act was committed.

The Court noted that in P. Mohanasudaram, the person had already been convicted of bigamy, whereas the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court had not been convicted to date.

Not being convinced by the proof placed before it, the Court held that the order was ex parte and that there was a violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the suspension order was quashed and the respondents were directed to provide proper notice to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks.