The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) ordering disciplinary action against a lawyer can be challenged only by way of an appeal before the Supreme Court of India under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that a litigant cannot indirectly assail disciplinary orders of the BCI by invoking criminal proceedings or the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by an advocate challenging an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act) which had rejected his complaint seeking criminal action against some individuals.

The petitioner, P Balasubramaniyan, had alleged that disciplinary action taken against him was connected with his membership of a Scheduled Caste and had sought action under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as various provisions of the IPC.

The disciplinary proceedings arose after the Madras High Court directed its Registrar General in 2018 to lodge a complaint against Balasubramaniyan before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

The State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee subsequently found him guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a three-year suspension from practice.

In another disciplinary case, he was initially removed from the State Bar Council rolls. The Bar Council of India, in appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, affirmed the disciplinary order and modified the punishment in the second case to five years' suspension.

Balasubramaniyan thereafter approached the Rouse Avenue District Courts, instead of invoking the statutory remedy under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.

Justice Kaurav upheld the dismissal of his petition, holding that the District Court's order did not suffer from any infirmity.

“An order passed by the disciplinary committee of the BCI, in appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is amenable to challenge only by way of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the said Act,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that Balasubramaniyan had sought to challenge the disciplinary orders “collaterally, and through a petition seeking criminal action.

“In any event, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court underSections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is supervisory in nature, and is to be exercised only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction, an illegality or a perversity,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court held that there was no scope for interference with the District Court's order and that the reliefs sought by the lawyer, and dismissed the plea.

“In view of the foregoing, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order, nor can any of the reliefs sought in the present petition, whether for unsettling the order passed by the BCI, or for the issuance of directions against the proposed accused persons, be granted. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed,” it said.

Title: P BALASUBRAMANIYAN v. SHRI VINAY KUMAR GUPTA

Click here to read order