Lawyers Must Act Decently Not Only With Own Clients But Also With Opposite Parties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently advised lawyers to represent themselves decently within the court's premises not only with their client(s), but also with the opposite counsel(s) and their client(s).

“…behaviour of a lawyer in the Court premises is one such important factor which attracts the allegation of misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Every lawyer has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers appearing from the other side and also to the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, and the case would not be thrown out only on this ground alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The matter pending before the Court since October 2012 came for final disposal only this year.  The Appellant-an advocate was aggrieved by the Bar Council of India's decision to suspend his bar license for a period of one year for misconduct. Since 2012, the interim stay on the suspension of the Appellant's bar license has been in operation.

Briefly put, a complaint for professional misconduct, along with a police complaint, was filed against the appellant for allegedly showing indecent and bad behaviour towards an opposite counsel's client i.e., the respondent/ complainant, within the court premises. The Appellant allegedly caught the respondent/ complainant from his collar; gave a beating and abused and threatened to kill the respondent/complainant in the Court's toilet.

Initially, the complainant's complaint was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not his advocate; however, in a review filed by the complainant, notices were issued to the Appellant.  

Since, the incident was of the year 2005, the Supreme Court, instead of remitting back the matter to the BCI for fresh consideration for lack of opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, itself decided the matter, noting that nearly 21 years have lapsed.

Considering that the proceedings have been initiated against the appellant, which concerns his indecent behaviour only and does not concern with the case proceedings or proceedings inside the Court, the bench deemed it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Appeal by issuing warning to the appellant.  

The appeal was disposed of, modifying the order passed by the Bar Council of India to the above extent.

Cause Title: SUDHENDU PRAKASH GAUTAM VERSUS S.L. CHAUDHARY

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 777

Click here to download order

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saransh Maheshwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nidhi, AOR Mr. Dhruv Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Om Kumar, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR