BCI Cannot Issue Warning To Advocate When Misconduct Complaint Was Found Baseless : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently expunged an adverse remark made against an advocate during the proceedings before the Bar Council of India.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi noted that since the complaint against him for an alleged professional misconduct was dismissed by the concerned State Bar Council, whose decision was duly affirmed by the Bar Council of India (“BCI”), then it was unjustifiable for the BCI to record an adverse remark against an advocate.

A complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, was registered against the Appellant-Advocate, practicing in the Courts of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, who happened to be Appellant's sister's husband, alleged that the Appellant had threatened and intimated to him to kill him, over the growing tensions between the parties, due to an ongoing marital dispute between the Appellant's sister and her husband, i.e., the complainant.

The Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council had dismissed the complaint after finding it to be false and motivated by the mala fide intention to harass the appellant-advocate for oblique purposes and rejected the same with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on respondent no.3- complainant.

The Complainant appealed before the BCI, which had refused to interfere with the State Bar Council's decision; however, it set aside the cost imposed on the complainant. Furthermore, while dismissing the complainant's appeal, the BCI had issued a warning to the appellant-advocate observing that he shall not indulge in any unwarranted conduct of giving any threat or intimidation to respondent no.3- complainant.

Aggrieved by such an adverse remark, the advocate appealed before the Supreme Court under Section 38.

Allowing the appeal, the court observed:

“The disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council as well as the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India did not find any merit in the complaint. Inspite thereof, the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, without any justification whatsoever proceeded to issue a warning to the appellant-advocate observing that he shall not indulge in any unwarranted conduct of giving any threat or intimidation to respondent no.3- complainant.”

The Court said that the BCI has exceeded in recording such a warning for the Appellant, despite the State Bar Council's decision dismissing a complaint against him, which was upheld by the BCI, and no proceedings were initiated against the BCI's decision by the complainant.

“It may be mentioned that respondent no.3-complainant has accepted the concurrent findings that the complaint was frivolous and motivated as he has not questioned these findings before any competent forum…. The observations noted by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India recording a warning against the appellant-advocate are hereby quashed and struck off.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: PREM PAL SINGH VERSUS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Click here to download order