Nigam, Chandhiok, Uppal appear as Delhi HC stays BCI order against Dushyant Dave

The Delhi High Court today stayed the order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) directing the Bar Council of Gujarat to ‘look in and decide’ a complaint filed against Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave..Representing Dave today before a single judge bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhder were Senior Advocates Arvind Nigam, AS Chandhiok and Kirti Uppal, who were briefed by advocate Aditya Garg. After hearing both parties, Justice Shakhder decided to stay the order passed by the BCI, and issued notice returnable on April 2..A complaint was filed by advocate RP Luthra against Prashant Bhushan and Dave, in light of recent events at the Supreme Court. The BCI took notice of the same and sent the matter to be decided by Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, Vice-Chairman Satish Deshmukh and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Apurba Kumar Sharma. On January 24, the trio came to the conclusion that Dave was prima facie guilty of professional misconduct..The charges against Dave come on the back of his comments in and outside Court, with respect to the Judge Loya matter. With special reference to the stand-off between the Senior Advocate and Tehseen Poonawalla in the Loya hearing at the Supreme Court, it has been alleged that Dave had committed “professional misconduct”. The order states,.“This conduct prima facie appears to be unprofessional. The various statements of Mr. Dave made in and outside the Court make it clear that Mr. Dave is acting at the instance of some lobby which is at work to manoever a particular case in a particular manner either to score political points at the Supreme Court and other courts and/or to gain publicity on the media. Prima-facie, it appears that by doing this, Mr. Dave has been maligning the image of the profession as well as of the Institution.”.The BCI has also taken exception to Dave’s raising questions regarding Senior Advocate Harish Salve’s appearance for the state of Maharashtra in the Judge Loya matter..Noting that the “entire legal fraternity as well as the institution is being damaged by such reckless, deliberate, contemptuous and derogatory statements” made by Dave, the BCI thus directed a Special Committee of the Bar Council of Gujarat to decide the complaint within two weeks..In reaction to this, Dave sought to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking that the January 24 order be set aside. The petition states that the order is liable to be set aside as it is,.“…wholly without jurisdiction and/or without any authority of law The said order is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and is also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.”.It is further contended that as per the Advocates Act, the power to undertake proceedings in cases of professional misconduct lies solely with the State Bar Councils, and that the BCI cannot initiate the same..Dave also states in his petition,.“The Petitioner categorically denies that such statements were in any manner disrespectful to the Judiciary as a whole or to any of its member much less disparaging or contemptuous….…Clearly the purpose of the impugned order appears to be to bring pressure on the Petitioner so as to force him not to appear in certain matters. It is respectfully submitted that such an attempt on the part of Respondent No. 1 is to say the least unfortunate and clearly impairs the rights and duties of Petitioner as an Advocate and also substantially interferes with the administration of justice.”.Read the BCI’ order:.Read the petition: