CHARANJEET CHANDRAPAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard both sides at some length in this petition.

(2.) The prayer in the main writ petition and in the criminal application seeking amendment is essentially that Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has not been able to evolve a mechanism which ensures disposal of complaints against the Advocates and coming from parties or other sections of the society. Mr. Chandrapal has fairly stated that the prayers in this petition are very wide and some of them are within the competence of the legislature but the grievance that he makes is that in the event, if any complaint is made against an Advocate he has to face numerous difficulties. The matters do not go to the Disciplinary Committee but there is a preliminary scrutiny or verification of the complaint so as to enable the Bar Council to record a satisfaction within the meaning of Section 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is only upon this satisfaction or reasons to believe that any Advocate whose name is not on the State role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, the case shall be referred for disposal to the Disciplinary Committee and that is the power of the Bar Council of India. Similarly, the power has been conferred on the State Bar Council which is to be found in Section -36B of the Advocates Act. The punishment for Advocates for misconduct is as set out in Section -35. Section -35 and other sections falling under Chapter -V pertain to Conduct of Advocates. The satisfaction that the State Bar Council has to record is in identical terms as that of the Bar Council of India. Preliminary scrutiny takes time, according to Mr. Chandrapal therefore, the Advocate is exposed to further allegations. Further, larger public interest suffers if the Bar Council takes time in deciding whether to proceed against the Advocate concerned. 2. In that regard Mr. Damle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Bar Council fairly states that the State Bar Council is obliged to record reasons for its belief and that is why it refers the matter for preliminary scrutiny and report. It is is a practice evolved by the State Council and it has to await the report from the member to whom the complaint is referred for preliminary scrutiny. It is sometimes based on the contents of the report and sometimes independently that the State Bar Council records the necessary reasons for its belief. This is not something which is provided in the Act or Rules is devised by the Bar Council itself in terms of the resolution passed way back in the year 1978 dated 24/6/1978. This is to avoid a fullfledged inquiry of a patently false, frivolous and vexatious complaint against the Advocates. It is to their benefit and subserves larger public interest.

(3.) While it is true that this Court cannot direct framing of the particular rule or that the power conferred in the Bar Council being exercised in a particular way, all that, we expect is that complaints against Advocates and which are of serious nature deserve to be attended expeditiously. The Bar Council must take note of the grievances as emerging now from the fellow Advocate who faces such proceedings. At least, now the Bar Council must in terms of its own procedure evolve a mechanism where too many complaints must not be referred to a Single member for preliminary scrutiny but they are distributed in such a way that a member to whom complaints are referred is not over burdened. It does not then delay the submission of his report or his preliminary findings. If the Bar Council desires to record an early satisfaction in terms of the statute, then, it must put its house in order. The complaint against the Advocate affects not only the image and reputation of the profession but public interest as well. If the Advocates are officers of the Courts and part and parcel of administration of justice then it is time that the Council brings about fairness and transparency in its actions and equally ensure that it acts in a timely manner when such complaints are received. The delay in dealing with complaints would definitely cast a slur on the working of the Council. In such circumstances, we would highly appreciate some intervention by the State Bar Council in this regard. We would not like to direct the respondents -a professional body to revise a particular scheme or mode of recording its satisfaction. Let the Bar Council take a note of this order and act accordingly.