Bar Council cannot suspend advocate's license at interim stage of disciplinary inquiry: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday held that the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council cannot suspend a lawyer at an interim stage of disciplinary proceedings against him [Akhilesh Jaiswal and Another v Bar Council of India and 2 Others]

A division bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary said the order of suspension under Section 35 (3) of the Advocates, 1961, is a final order and cannot be passed at an interim stage.

“According to this Court, the order of suspension as mentioned in Section 35 (3) (c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a final order and could not be passed at an interim stage by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a petition moved by two Lucknow lawyers challenging the license suspension of Akhilesh Jasiwal, President of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow and Avnish Dixit, Secretary of the Bar Association, during the pendency of a proceeding against them before the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

The Bench noted that the disciplinary committee's order dated September 26 against Jaiswal and Dixit failed to mention whether a copy of the complaint was provided to them as was requested by them.

It added that while the order adjourned the hearing to October 11, it simultaneously proceeded to suspend the lawyers’ license till further orders.

The Court said that the indefinite suspension of license appeared to be unsustainable in law. In this regard, it also referred to a Madras High Court ruling which said the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry cannot place a person under interim suspension pending disciplinary inquiry.

“Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the procedure adopted by the authorities in the present case is not in consonance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the suspension order. However, it asked the petitioners to appear before the State Bar Council on the next date of hearing set by the disciplinary committee.

“In the event that any documents are required to be furnished to the petitioners and have not yet been supplied, the same shall be provided by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, in accordance with law, upon a request being made by the petitioners within 24 hours. It is further clarified that no unnecessary request for adjournment shall be made by the petitioners,” it added.

Senior Advocate Sharad Pathak with advocates Mayank Pandey, Aarav Singh and Priya Singh represented the petitioners.

Advocate Shailesh Kumar Pathak represented the Bar Council of India.

Advocate Subhash Chandra Pandey appeared for other respondents. 

[Read Judgment]