Lawyer's Facebook comments against Judiciary: P&H HC rules only State Bar Council Disciplinary Committee can suspend law practice

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a resolution passed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana suspending an advocate’s licence to practice after he supposedly posted “derogatory comments” on Facebook about lawyers and the judiciary (Vijay Bharat Verma v. State of Punjab)..The Advocates Act and the BCI Rules do not bestow power on the State Bar Council to suspend an Advocate's licence to practice when the matter has been referred to a disciplinary committee, the Court said..A Bench of Justice Alka Sarin was hearing the matter. While pronouncing judgment, the Court interpreted the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules..In this case, the disciplinary proceedings against the Advocate were pending before the disciplinary committee..The State Bar Council had taken “suo moto cognizance” of certain comments posted by Advocate Vijay Bharat Verma on Facebook. After the Council took cognizance, it served a show-cause notice upon him over WhatsApp and also via speed post..After the lawyer failed to respond, the Council passed a Resolution against him simultaneously suspending his licence to practice and referring his case to a disciplinary committee..Aggrieved, the lawyer approached the High Court, and assailed the simultaneous act of suspension and reference to a disciplinary committee..Describing the suspension of an Advocate’s licence to practise as a ‘death knell’, the Court observed that it operated to his prejudice “not only in praesenti but also puts a taint which attaches far beyond.".The court made reference to the Bar Council Act and Rules and stated that there was no provision which conferred upon the Bar Council power to suspend an Advocate. Only the disciplinary committee could resort to such a step, the Court stated..When taking this view, the court disputed the view taken by Madras High Court in K. Sathyabal vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry & Ors.' which held that since the disciplinary committee is a creature of the State Bar Council, what such a disciplinary committee can do can always be done by the State Bar Council..The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that it was well-settled that a body created by a statute conformed to the provisions of the regulating statute.."In the present case, the power of taking any punitive action against an Advocate for misconduct vests under Section 35 of the 1961 Act only with the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council (respondent). The procedure for taking such action has been detailed in the BCI Rules. It is trite law that a body created by a statute only has powers granted expressly or by implication in that statute.”.Pertinently, the court did not specifically respond to the question whether the social media posts could be described misconduct..The court simply opined that the Bar Council could initiate fresh proceedings against the Advocate if it was so advisable..Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt, assisted by Advocates Bhaskar Subramanian and Ankit Midha appeared for the petitioner, Vijay Bharat Verma, who also appeared party in person. Advocates CM Munjal and Gaurav Sharma appeared for the Bar Council..Read the Order: