Karnataka High Court Stays Suspension Of Former State Bar Council Chairperson Over Allegations Of Professional Misconduct

The Karnataka High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (January 20) stayed State Bar Council's decision suspending the immediate former chairperson of the bar body, pending an inquiry initiated over allegations of professional misconduct.

The petitioner had challenged a 10-1-2026 notification issued by the bar council which had suspended his license to practice, alleging that the procedure was not followed properly.

After hearing the matter for some time Justice BM Shyam Prasad in his order dictated:

"...at this stage the court is considering whether the decision to keep petitioner under suspension pending an inquiry is permissible given the language of section 35 of Advocate Act. Shri MS Shyam Sundar cannot categorically state that the apex court's decision is in the context which is similar to the present of the present and in is in light of Section 35 of the Advocates Act. As such the very jurisdiction to keep petitioner under suspension pen inquiry will have to be ascertained. This court, given consequences vis., loss of opportunity and status which may not be justified on the conclusion of inquiry proceedings in the given context, is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim order staying the Bar Council's decision to keep the petitioner's license under suspension but without prejudice to continuance of the proceedings".

"We are staying the decision to suspend the license to practice and the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and the outcome shall be subject to orders of this court," the court added.

The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the state bar council's privileges committee had filed a report that petitioner has spent an amount over Rs. 12 Lakh without authorization and that report is basis of action under Section 35 (Punishment of advocates for misconduct) Advocates Act

He submitted that the bar council could refer a complaint or information otherwise received for disposal, to its disciplinary committee, if it has reason to believe that the member against whom complaint is filed is guilty of professional misconduct.

He said that the disciplinary committee will have to extend an opportunity of hearing and after this it could decide on suspending a member from practicing for any period. He however said that this power only rests with the disciplinary committee and not with the State Bar Council. He emphasized that the decision to keep petitioner under suspension could only be taken after an inquiry and not as an interim measure.

He submitted that the petitioner's definite case is that this decision has been taken in light of elections notified to the State Bar Council and to "preempt" the petitioner's participation in the election. He argued that the allegation even if it could be asserted to be true will not amount to professional misconduct because the allegation is that amount is spent without authorization by the State Bar Council.

The senior counsel appearing for the State Bar Council submitted three decisions, including the decision of the Supreme Court in a 2022 miscellaneous application filed in a 2019 plea to contend that as it is posited by the apex court the power in the bar council to revoke a license or suspend a license for a fixed term would also include the incidental power of interim suspension pending disposal of the proceedings.

The matter is listed on February 2.

Case title: SRI MITTALAKOD SHIDLINGAPPA SHEKHARAPPA v/s KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

WP 1700/2026