22 March 2023 7:57 AM GMT
Challenging the order of single judge directing it to provide details of all pending complaints before it, the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) has argued before the Delhi High Court that the State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India (BCI) are not amenable to writ jurisdiction for their day to day matters relating to disciplinary proceedings.Justice Prathiba M Singh last month directed the...
Challenging the order of single judge directing it to provide details of all pending complaints before it, the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) has argued before the Delhi High Court that the State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India (BCI) are not amenable to writ jurisdiction for their day to day matters relating to disciplinary proceedings.
Justice Prathiba M Singh last month directed the BCD to place on record the details of all pending complaints against the advocates. The information sought includes the dates of filing of the complaints and first notices.
The BCD has filed an appeal against the order.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Datta today issued notice on the appeal and listed it for hearing on April 17. The BCD was represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta and advocates K C Mittal, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Sachin Jain.
“….the observations made by the Ld. Single Judge in the impugned order have the effect of casting doubt on the functioning of the Bar Council of Delhi, and its members, which has not only lowered the dignity of the body but has rendered the entire functioning of the Bar Council of Delhi redundant,” the appeal states.
BCD has submitted that the impugned order is not in consonance with the scheme of Advocates Act, 1961 which states that the State Bar Councils BCI are not amenable to writ jurisdiction for cases relating to disciplinary proceedings.
“Further, there is no provision for interference by way of Writ jurisdiction by the Ld. High Courts or for that matter any other Court, except the Hon'ble Supreme Court,” the plea states.
Referring to the legislative scheme of Advocates Act, the plea further submits it is only in cases where Bar Council’s full house is not satisfied with the reply or explanation of the delinquent Advocate that it refers the complaint to the disciplinary committee for further action.
While passing the impugned order, Justice Prathiba M Singh had observed that lawyers "being put to harassment and frustration" due to repeated complaints to Bar Council cannot be countenanced, unless some serious case of misconduct is made out.
The single judge was hearing a petition filed by four lawyers challenging the notices issued by BCD dated February 13 directing them to remain present in person on February 24 at the bar council’s office. The notices were sent after BCD took cognizance of a complaint filed on January 13.
All four lawyers are respondents in BCD’s appeal.
Title: COUNCIL OF DELHI v. MS. MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS