Can BCI Disciplinary Committee appreciate documents in vernacular language? Supreme Court does not think so

The Supreme Court has expressed its amazement at a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI), which was passed on the basis of documentary evidence in a language alien to its members..In a judgment passed by a 3-judge Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar and Mohan M Shantangoudar the Court set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI..The two-decade long litigation began in 1997 with a complaint made by one Dhanapalan against certain lawyers for professional misconduct. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu could not complete the enquiry into the complaint within a year and the matter stood transferred to the BCI..The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India proceeded with the enquiry and at the end of the enquiry found that the appellants were guilty of professional misconduct. The Committee, however, took a lenient view and merely reprimanded the appellants with strict warning that in future they should not indulge in business activities or fail to maintain proper accounts of their clients. The Committee also directed the accused lawyers to pay costs of Rs. 5000 to the respondent-complainant and to deposit a further amount of Rs. 10,000 in the Advocates Welfare Fund of Bar Council of India. This decision of the Bar Council of India was challenged before the Supreme Court..One of the main submissions by the appellant lawyers was that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the complainants. Further, they contended that the documents relied upon by the respondent-complainant were in vernacular language. Without translating those documents and giving translated copy thereof to the appellants, the Disciplinary Committee could not have relied on the same much less record a finding with reference to those documents..The Supreme Court accepted the aforesaid submissions. Regarding the denial of opportunity to cross-examine the complainants, the Court held,.“Since the allegations made against the appellants were serious and the finding of guilt recorded against them inevitably had civil consequences, it is cardinal that they should have been allowed to cross-examine the concerned witnesses. Not granting of such opportunity, entails in infraction of principles of natural justice..The Court then proceeded to express its astonishment at the Disciplinary committee members placing reliance on documents in Tamil..“…we are at a loss to appreciate as to how the Disciplinary Committee consisting of members who were not familiar with the vernacular script, could analyse and appreciate the documentary evidence relied by the parties when the said evidence was in a language not known to them. Without proper analysis of those documents, the members of the Disciplinary Committee could not have arrived at any conclusion, leave alone a conclusive opinion about its efficacy.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Committee..Read the judgment below.