Supreme Court fines Maharashtra & Goa Bar Council ₹1 lakh for frivolous complaints against 2 lawyers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed total costs of ₹1 lakh on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for initiating frivolous disciplinary proceedings against two advocates [Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors].

In one of the cases, the Court also directed the complainant to pay an additional cost of ₹50,000 for filing a frivolous complaint.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing two pleas arising out of disciplinary action initiated by BCMG against advocates Rajiv Narula and Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri.

"Both the special leave petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed as such," the Court ordered.

The first matter arose from a complaint filed before the BCMG, alleging professional misconduct by Narula concerning the settlement terms in a 1985 civil suit, in which the advocate had represented the plaintiff. The complainant contended that he had been defrauded by the consent terms and asserted that his property had been fraudulently included in those agreements.

In July 2023, the BCMG referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

Narula challenged the proceedings, pointing out that he had never represented the complainant or his predecessor, and had merely identified a party in the consent terms. The Bombay High Court stayed the proceedings. Aggrieved by the order, the BCMG approached Supreme Court.

The apex court found that the complaint was mala fide and that Narula’s arraignment was wholly unjustified.

"There existed no professional relationship between the respondent-advocate and the complainant. His prosecution, as being the lawyer of the opposite party in the suit before the High Court, was highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for. Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of “professional misconduct”," the Court held.

It also criticised the BCMG’s referral order as “cryptic and laconic” and lacking in application of mind.

"The order dated 6th July, 2023, does not even make a bald reference to the gist of allegations as set out in the complaint and hence, the same suffers from total non-application of mind."

Accordingly, the Court quashed complaint and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the BCMG, to be paid to Narula.

The second plea arose from a complaint filed by Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, a former lecturer turned advocate, against Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. The grievance against Shastri was that she identified the deponent of an affidavit filed with a chamber summons and certified certain documents as true copies.

The complainant contended that the affidavit contained false statements, and by attesting to the deponent, the advocate allegedly became responsible for offences of forgery, perjury and cheating.

Shastri challenged the complaint before the High Court, which held that she had never sworn to the affidavit and that merely identifying the deponent did not render her responsible for the affidavit’s contents. The High Court found the allegations baseless and malicious.

The Supreme Court upheld this finding, observing that the complaint was devoid of substance and founded on spiteful insinuations against the advocate.

“The steps taken and order passed by the BCMG in directing registration of the complaint and in referring the same to the DC for undertaking the inquiry were illegal on the face of the record, bordering on perversity. It is manifestly a case of malicious prosecution of the advocate at the behest of the opponent litigant," the order stated.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of ₹50,000 each on the complainant and BCMG, to be paid to Shastri.

[Read Judgment]