Banks Cannot Blacklist Lawyers By Putting Them In Caution List : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that the Indian Banks' Association cannot blacklist panel lawyers by putting their names in a 'caution list' prepared as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India to alert banks about fraudulent borrowers. The Court held that while a bank can remove an advocate from its panel if there was negligence, there cannot be a public declaration of such action. It clarified that disciplinary power over advocates for professional misconduct solely remained with the Bar Council.The Court held that the RBI-mandated caution list is intended to cover only unscrupulous borrowers and not negligent professionals. The judgment authored observed :"The mechanism envisaged in the Caution List under the RBI circulars cannot be invoked to determine or punish alleged professional misconduct by advocates. Permitting banks or banking associations to bypass the disciplinary process under the Advocates Act and unilaterally portray an advocate as professionally incompetent by including his name in a Caution List is illegal, unsustainable and impermissible. It would amount to circumventing the legal profession's freedom of self-regulation, which, in turn, is an inextricable feature of the independence of the judiciary. Consequently, we hold that the action of including appellant's name in the Caution List and the consequent comment on his competency is illegal and is set aside."A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe pronounced the judgment in a lawyer's petition filed against an Allahabad High Court judgment refusing to entertain his writ petition to quash the caution list."Matters relating to professional conduct or misconduct of advocates fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regulatory bodies constituted under the Act, namely the Bar Council of India and the respective State Bar Councils. Banks have the choice of disengaging a legal professional and also to remove his/her name from the panel if the services are not up to the mark, but an action in the nature of public declaration to all other banks about the conduct, competency or incompetency of an advocate is clearly beyond their power and jurisdiction and clearly illegal."The Court also directed the Bar Council of India to establish a National Legal Academy for Advocates, in the lines of the National Judicial Academy, to institutionalise the discipline and culture of continuing legal education.While affirming the Bar's right to self-regulation through peer review, the Supreme Court stressed that this autonomy must be matched by transparency, accountability, and institutional effectiveness. It observed that public confidence in the legal profession depends on disciplinary mechanisms that are credible and trustworthy.Accordingly, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to undertake a performance audit of the efficacy and credibility of its disciplinary powers and implement appropriate corrective and remedial measures based on the findings."The right and privilege of self-regulation of the Bar, through peer review, must withstand scrutiny on the touchstones of transparency, accountability, and institutional effectiveness."BackgroundSyndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) alleged that the petitioner, who was a panel advocate for the bank, helped a borrower defraud the bank while preparing a search and title report for an immovable property to be given as and security for a loan. It is alleged that he issued a wrong legal opinion by failing to mention in the report that part of the property had been sold by the borrower, thereby exposing the bank to financial risk.The lawyer had sought the quashing of the caution list dated February 05, 2020, in which the petitioner's name appeared at serial number 781. The 'caution list' was prepared in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India guidelines to alert banks about fraudulent borrowers. He also sought a direction restraining the Indian Banks' Association from circulating the caution list to banks and financial institutions where the petitioner was empanelled as a panel advocate, and from advising such institutions to blacklist the petitioner.IBA contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, as it does not fall within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution.The High Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court.The petitioner has contended that his name was placed in the Caution List hosted on the IBA website without following the Procedural Guidelines for Reporting Names of Third Parties involved in Frauds to IBA for inclusion in the Caution List, July 2009 of the RBI, without any prior notice, without affording a fair opportunity of hearing and without detailed examination and investigation into the alleged fraud.He has further contended that other banks and financial institutions have terminated his service as panel advocate causing him not only a huge loss financial loss, but also loss of good will and reputation, and...

Banks Cannot Blacklist Lawyers By Putting Them In Caution List : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Matters relating to professional misconduct of advocates fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Councils.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Banks Cannot Blacklist Lawyers By Putting Them In Caution List : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Matters relating to professional misconduct of advocates fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Councils.

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