'Filed To Wreak Vengeance': Karnataka High Court Quashes Professional Misconduct Complaint Against Senior Advocate
The Karnataka High Court quashed a complaint by a former male employee of Zoomcar India Private Limited, alleging professional misconduct against Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari before the State Bar Council (KSBC).Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the complaint filed by the man, who was terminated from service after being found guilty of sexual harassment wherein Kothari was part of the...
The Karnataka High Court quashed a complaint by a former male employee of Zoomcar India Private Limited, alleging professional misconduct against Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari before the State Bar Council (KSBC).
Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the complaint filed by the man, who was terminated from service after being found guilty of sexual harassment wherein Kothari was part of the company's Internal Complaints Committee as an external member. It also quashed a notice issued to Kothari by the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC).
It said:
“The foundation in the complaint, inter alia, touches upon the merits of the opinion of the Committee which decided to terminate the services of the 1st respondent. To wreak vengeance the complaint is registered before the Bar Council, without having any locus to do so, as there is no contract or a client-advocate relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. In that light, permitting the complaint to proceed any further would amount to becoming an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice"
The petitioner, based on her expertise on the issue of tackling sexual harassment of women at work place was requested by Zoomcar India Private Limited, to be its General Counsel to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As a General Counsel the petitioner was given the role of an external member. She is said to have been a part of the Committee, as an external member, without receiving any payment or honorarium.
On 23-05-2019, a complaint of sexual harassment in the Company was made by a female employee against respondent 1, who was also an employee of the Company. He submitted his response refuting the allegations.
Being unsatisfied with his reply, the Committee decided to conduct an enquiry into the complaint in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The enquiry happened on 31-7- 2019, when both the parties were called in and statements were recorded. The parties were also called separately and the enquiry of both the parties was completed on the same day, including hearing of their submissions. During the enquiry, both the parties did not ask to cross examine each other.
Following which the committee members on 06-08-2019, passed an order holding respondent 1, guilty of sexual harassment at work place and recommended his termination. On 06-08-2019, he was terminated from service.
He challenged it before the Additional Labour Commissioner, which held that the findings of the Committee against the 1st respondent were baseless and made some observations against the petitioner. Kothari questioned the observations made by the Additional Labour Commissioner before the High Court and sought for expunging the remarks, which came to be allowed through order dated 19.04.2023, which has become final.
In the interregnum, respondent 1 filed a complaint before the State Bar Council on 11-09-2019. In his complaint he alleged that Kothari "took sides with the Company" in the proceedings, tried to "falsely implicate him" and she did not act independently or impartially during the proceedings.
It was also alleged that her brother, a practicing lawyer, had sent a caveat on behalf of the Company and therefore, there was conflict of interest.
Kothari was served a notice to which she replied on 12-12 2019; post her reply nothing was heard till March 2022. She then sought a copy of the entire file and came to know that the objections or the papers that were in the file were never served upon her, and the complaint was still alive. Following which she moved the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint.
It was argued that Kothari in her individual and independent capacity acted as an external member of the ICC. It was argued that findings rendered by the ICC cannot be construed to be a misconduct or violation of the Bar Council Rules. The decision taken by the Committee cannot mean that a misconduct under the Rules. The allegation that the petitioner was part of the firm and appearing for the Company is contrary to the records.
Respondent No. 1 opposed the plea submitting that Kothari was "specifically appointed as an external member" only for adjudication of the complaint against him. The constitution itself is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Further, it was alleged that she took the role of external member with malafide intention to orchestrate and execute the plan of the Company to terminate him.
The court was thus considering whether the petitioner in accepting the role of an external member of the Company's ICC, in her individual capacity and not as an Advocate, would amount to professional misconduct under the Advocates Act.
Referring to Section 35 of Advocates Act the court noted that it deals with punishment of advocates for misconduct.
It thereafter said, "The petitioner admittedly had no privity of contract with the 1st respondent/complainant, she was not his counsel, she was appointed as an external member, as observed hereinabove, under the provisions of the Act".
Relying on various judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts on the issue, the court held:
“The complaint itself ought not to have been entertained by the Bar Council, as Section 35 mandates that to entertain a complaint against an Advocate, the Bar Council must have reason to believe that the Advocate is guilty of misconduct. A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that it was a product of mala fides or suffering from want of bona fides.”
The court observed that respondent 1 had chosen to file an appeal before the Additional Labour Commissioner, succeeds and also contemporaneously complains to the Bar Council. It observed that the Labour Commissioner's observations had been expunged by the high court's coordinate bench.
Accordingly it allowed the petition.
Case Title: Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & ANR
Appearance: Senior Advocate K.N.Phanindra for Petitioner; Advocate Harsha Swaroop P For R-1; Advocate G Nataraj FOR R-2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19619 OF 2022