Appeal U/S 37 Advocates Act Maintainable Only Against Orders Of Disciplinary Committee, Not State Bar Council Resolutions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is maintainable only against orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Act, and not against resolutions or orders passed by the State Bar Council itself. The Court clarified that where no statutory appeal lies, the appropriate remedy would be to invoke the Bar Council of India's revisional jurisdiction under Section 48-A of the Act.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav thus dismissed a plea challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) communication refusing to entertain an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Advocates Act. Petitioner had approached the Court after the BCI advised him to avail the remedy of revision under Section 48-A instead.The dispute arose from a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Bar Council of Delhi alleging professional misconduct by two advocates engaged to file a review petition on behalf of his daughter. Petitioner alleged that despite receiving professional fees and documents, the advocates failed to file the review petition within limitation. The Bar Council of Delhi, however, dismissed the complaint after noting that the fees and documents had been returned to the petitioner.Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the BCI under Section 37. The BCI informed him that no appeal would lie under Section 37 against an order passed by the General Council of a State Bar Council and advised him to file a revision petition under Section 48-A instead.Upholding the BCI's stand, the High Court observed that the statutory scheme draws a clear distinction between appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 and revisional jurisdiction under Section 48-A. “Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically provides a statutory right of appeal only against an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. On the other hand, Section 48-A vests revisional jurisdiction in the Bar Council of India to call for records of proceedings disposed of by a State Bar Council or any committee thereof in cases where no statutory appeal lies,” it observed.The Court held that since the impugned order had been passed by the Bar Council of Delhi and not by its Disciplinary Committee constituted under Section 35, the BCI was justified in treating the remedy as one under Section 48-A and not Section 37. As such, the plea was disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act.Appearance: Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Mr. P. Shankar, Mrs. Lavan Devi J and Mrs. S. Gomathi Lakshmi, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr Preet Pal Singh, Ms Tanupreet Kaur, Ms Medha Sharma, Ms Pooja, Ms Simran Kumari, Advocates for RespondentCase title: Mr. C. Asok Kumar v. Bar Council Of IndiaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 532Case no.: W.P.(C) 6796/2026Click here to read order

Appeal U/S 37 Advocates Act Maintainable Only Against Orders Of Disciplinary Committee, Not State Bar Council Resolutions: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Appeal U/S 37 Advocates Act Maintainable Only Against Orders Of Disciplinary Committee, Not State Bar Council Resolutions: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers