Black Sheep In Legal Profession Must Be Dealt With Immediately : Supreme Court Questions Bar Council Disciplinary Mechanism

The Supreme Court today raised concerns over the lack of effective remedies for clients against errant lawyers and questioned the efficiency of the Bar Council of India as well as State Bar Councils in deciding complaints filed by clients aggrieved by their lawyers' misconduct.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a case involving a lawyer who was blacklisted by a bank for alleged fraud. The bank had also communicated to other banks that the lawyer was not trustworthy.

The lawyer has challenged a caution list issued by the Indian Banks' Association, in which he was included on allegations of fraud. The concerned bank has alleged that the lawyer helped a borrower defraud the bank while preparing a search and title report for a loan.

During the hearing, Justice Narasimha said that there is a general perception that the standards of the profession have declined and stressed that prompt action against misconduct is necessary to maintain standards within the profession.

“There is a general perception that this profession has gone down. If there are black sheep, have you dealt with them immediately to take care of them? It is intended to protect the profession, not intended to tarnish it. Therefore, how efficiently you do this is the question”, he said.

He stressed that the Bar Councils should be two steps ahead in dealing with professional misconduct.

“But if there is a slack or if there is unprofessionality, it is all the more reason that you should be two steps ahead to ensure that such people are dealt with so that the rest of the profession prospers properly and renders services which are to the best of the very contemplation of what the profession needs to be”, he said.

How long does it take for a client to get a remedy against a lawyer's misconduct?

Addressing the Bar Council of India, the Court questioned whether it had ever conducted an impact assessment of itself and the State Bar Councils. It questioned how long it takes for a client to obtain a remedy against professional misconduct and how efficiently complaints are handled. The Court also noted that remedies available to clients are narrow and that other statutory remedies.

“Has the BCI ever done an impact assessment of itself and the State Bar Councils? How long does it take for a client to get remedy against professional misconduct of a lawyer? How quickly and efficiently are you taking care of the complaints? There are elections after elections. What is the impact for a client? The remedies are so narrowed down. Other statutory remedies (like consumer protection) are reduced for the stakeholders, which are the clients”, Justice Narasimha said.

The Court clarified that its remarks were intended for the betterment of the profession and not to tarnish it. It highlighted that the objective of restricting other statutory remedies is to ensure that lawyers function independently with integrity and provide efficient services.

However, if there is unprofessional conduct, regulatory bodies must be “two steps ahead” in dealing with such cases, Justice Narasimha emphasised.

Advocate Radhika Gautam for the Bar Council of India submitted that the issue is governed by the Advocates Act, 1961. She submitted that the Act provides one year for State Bar Councils to decide complaints, failing which the matter is automatically transferred to BCI.

The Court then sought to know the ground reality and questioned whether BCI has ever reviewed its own performance. The Court also sought data on how many complaints are received and how many are disposed of annually.

Justice Narasimha asked the Counsel to convey the Court's concern to the BCI Chairman and members of the Bar Council and called for an impact assessment.

The BCI counsel emphasised that while improvements may be required, any solution must remain within the framework of the Advocates Act and should not involve taking away powers or adopting mechanisms outside the statute, such as what was done by the bank in this case.

Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave submitted that merely debarring a lawyer may not be sufficient in such cases. However, she emphasised that complaints must be adjudicated in accordance with the Advocates Act and before the Bar Council, which is the appropriate authority.

She also objected to the publication of the caution list as was done in the present case, stating that such measures go too far, particularly when decisions may be taken by persons who are not experts in law.

Justice Narasimha noted that because of the independence of the legal profession and the fact that it is not treated as a business, remedies under consumer protection law are unavailable.

He highlighted that clients often struggle to obtain relief in cases of unprofessional conduct and stressed that Bar Councils must be efficient in addressing such complaints in practice, not just in theory.

He noted that in the absence of alternative statutory remedies, attempts are made to coordinate and share information based on experience with individuals to caution others, and not to undermine the Bar Council of India.

Amicus curiae Senior Advocate Maninder Singh submitted that such measures cannot justify the violation of the fundamental rights of the lawyer to carry out his profession. He argued that even if the action was not directly by the State, it was taken under a circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and statutory power cannot be used to enable a private body to take actions that infringe the fundamental rights of a professional without the sanction of law.

Background

The matter originates from a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of a caution list dated February 05, 2020, in which the petitioner's name appeared at serial number 781. The petitioner had also sought a direction restraining the Indian Banks' Association from circulating the caution list to banks and financial institutions where the petitioner was empanelled as a panel advocate, and from advising such institutions to blacklist the petitioner.

Opposing the writ petition, the IBA argued that the principal relief was directed against its caution list and the petition is not maintainable as the Indian Banks' Association does not fall within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The High Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held that the writ petition was devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court today reserved orders in the SLP filed by the lawyer against the High Court's decision.

Case no. – Diary No. 10787 / 2024

Case Title – Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association