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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that “black sheep” within the legal profession must be dealt with immediately to safeguard the integrity of the profession, while questioning the Bar Council of India (BCI) on the effectiveness and timeliness of its disciplinary processes.

The remarks were made during the hearing of a case involving a lawyer who was allegedly blacklisted by a bank for fraud, with the bank also communicating to other banks that the lawyer was not trustworthy.

During the hearing, the Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe raised broader concerns about the functioning of professional regulatory bodies and the availability of remedies for clients aggrieved by professional misconduct. The Court asked the BCI whether it had ever undertaken an impact assessment of its own functioning and that of State Bar Councils.

The Court specifically questioned how long it takes for a client to obtain relief against professional misconduct by a lawyer and how efficiently complaints are handled. It further noted that while elections to Bar Councils are regularly conducted, the real concern is the outcome for clients seeking remedies.

“There are elections after elections. What is the impact for a client?” the Court asked, adding that the remedies available to clients are often narrow and that other statutory remedies, such as those under consumer protection laws, have been curtailed for stakeholders like clients.

Clarifying that its observations were intended to strengthen, not criticise, the profession, the Court said the objective was to ensure that lawyers function as a body capable of delivering services efficiently and with integrity.

“We are saying this for the betterment of the profession, not in a negative way. This is intended to ensure that lawyers are such kind of a body that they would efficiently and with integrity be able to give services,” the Bench observed.

The Court emphasised that instances of slackness or unprofessional conduct should prompt regulatory bodies to act proactively. It observed that disciplinary authorities should be “two steps ahead” in dealing with misconduct so that the rest of the profession can prosper and deliver services in line with the standards expected of it.

Responding to the Court's queries, counsel for the BCI submitted that the disciplinary mechanism is already provided under the Advocates Act. He pointed out that the law prescribes a one-year period for State Bar Councils to decide complaints, failing which the matter is automatically transferred to the Bar Council of India.

However, the Court continued to press for accountability, asking whether the BCI reviews annual reports on the number of complaints received and the efficiency with which they are resolved.

“Have you ever reviewed your performance?” the Court asked.

The counsel responded that he would obtain instructions on the issue.

The Bench also referred to a growing public perception that the standards of the legal profession have declined, stressing that prompt action against errant members is essential to maintain public confidence.

“There is a general perception that this profession has gone down. Reason being that 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,” the Court observed.

The Court directed the counsel to convey to the Chairman of the BCI and other office-bearers the need to undertake an impact assessment of their functioning.

In response, the counsel submitted that while improvements may be necessary, reforms should be carried out within the framework of the Advocates Act and not by transferring regulatory authority outside the statutory scheme.

Appearing in the matter, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave submitted that merely debarring a lawyer upon receiving a complaint would not be sufficient. She emphasised that grievances must be adjudicated by competent authorities under the Advocates Act.

She further expressed concern over the practice of publishing caution lists by entities such as banks, stating that decisions affecting a lawyer's professional standing should be made by legally qualified authorities.

“Here somebody who is deciding is not even an expert in law. They might have a grievance, but then that grievance has to be adjudicated in the manner provided under the Advocates Act and the BCI is the appropriate authority to look into it. Simply by publishing a caution list, I feel that they are going too far with it,” she submitted.

Justice Narasimha observed that the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to legal profession, as it is not treated as a business.

"Because of the independence of the profession the remedies the and that it is not equated to a business, it is taken away from the consumer protection. A client is struggling for remedy in case of an unprofessional act. The Bar Councils have to be efficient enough to provide a remedy in case were there is a lapse on part of the lawyer. Theoritically it is alright. But practically also we must see how efficient it will be. Are the existential professional bodies immediately taking up a complaint and then deal with it? Secondly when you are having other statuary remedies such remedies are unavailable because it is said said to be a noble profession. So where does the efficiency come from? It is in that process that an attempt is sought to be made to co-ordinate with each other to say that "I have experience with this person so therefore he is not so good so be cautious if you take up his services." Not in the sense that they want to undermine the BCI," Justice Narasimha said.