After Client Withdrew Complaint, BCI Disciplinary Committee Couldn't Have Imposed Penalty On Advocate : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 29) set aside the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee's order holding an advocate guilty of professional misconduct, holding that disciplinary proceedings could not be sustained after the complainant-client had unequivocally withdrawn his complaint and expressed satisfaction with the advocate's conduct. “Once the respondent complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the appellant-advocate and categorically sought to withdraw the complaint, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist. In these circumstances, the order holding appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct is considered wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while allowing the Advocate's appeal. The appellant-advocate was engaged to file a quashing petition, which the High Court allowed subject to costs. Delay in depositing the amount led to dismissal and revival of criminal proceedings, though the order was later recalled on an application filed by the advocate, with enhanced costs. Alleging negligence, the client approached the State Bar Council, but the dispute was subsequently settled: the High Court waived the costs and finally quashed the FIR. Despite the client withdrawing the complaint by affidavit in December 2022 and expressing full satisfaction, the BCI's Disciplinary Committee in April 2025 ignored the withdrawal and imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on the advocate, leading to an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Supreme Court. Setting aside the penalty and the proceedings, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings had disappeared once the complainant voluntarily withdrew the allegations and affirmed that no grievance survived. “The Committee failed to appreciate that the substratum of the complaint had ceased to exist once the dispute was amicably resolved and the complaint was sought to be withdrawn by the respondent-complainant himself by way of a duly sworn affidavit. The impugned judgment neither adverts to the affidavit filed by the respondent-complainant nor deals with the categorical withdrawal of allegations and the expression of satisfaction with the professional conduct of the appellant-advocate.”, the court noted. Further, the Court flagged serious procedural lapses, observing that the finding of misconduct was based solely on the bare allegations in the original complaint. “we find that the same does not reflect that any evidence was led by the respondent-complainant to substantiate the allegations set out in the complaint. It appears that the appellant-advocate has been held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations contained in the complaint, without the complainant being examined on oath and without affording the appellant-advocate the indefeasible right of cross-examination, thereby rendering the finding of professional misconduct legally unsustainable.”, the court said. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment imposing Rs. 1 Lakh cost on the Appellant-advocate was set aside.HeadnoteAdvocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 and Section 38 – Professional Misconduct – Withdrawal of Complaint – Sustainability of Disciplinary Action – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) which had held an advocate guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh – Noted that the BCI failed to consider that the complainant had filed a sworn affidavit seeking to withdraw the complaint, stating the initial grievance arose from a "misunderstanding" regarding the deposit of costs and expressing full satisfaction with the advocate's services.Procedural Fairness – Right to Cross-Examination – Supreme Court noted that the finding of professional misconduct was based merely on "bald allegations" in the complaint without the complainant being examined on oath or the appellant advocate being afforded the right of cross-examination – Held that such findings are legally unsustainable when the substratum of the complaint has ceased to exist due to an amicable settlement between the parties. [Paras 7- 10]Cause Title: MONTY GOYAL VERSUS NAVRANG SINGHCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 91Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Thakur, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Gupta, AOR

After Client Withdrew Complaint, BCI Disciplinary Committee Couldn't Have Imposed Penalty On Advocate : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

After Client Withdrew Complaint, BCI Disciplinary Committee Couldn't Have Imposed Penalty On Advocate : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers