Complaints Of Professional Misconduct Against An Advocate Must Be Made By Individuals Who Have The Legal Standing And A Jural Relationship With The Advocate

BY: THE LEX TIMES

The Karnataka High Court has stated that complaints of professional misconduct against an advocate must be made by individuals who have the legal standing and a jural relationship with the advocate.

A writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to annul a notice issued by the State Bar Council and a related complaint. Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s bench remarked, “This Court holds that any professional misconduct of an advocate must be complained of by individuals who have locus to complain, as the State Bar Council, being a statutory authority, is empowered to investigate any misconduct by an advocate and issue appropriate orders.”

The petitioner represented himself, while Advocates Gangadharappa A. and R. Neelakanta Swamy represented the respondents.

The petitioner contended that his mere appearance for the decree-holders in an execution case could not constitute professional misconduct. He was accused of engaging in a transaction with the decree-holders and not representing Respondent No. 2.

The court referred to precedents such as Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013 SC), Bharat Lal Pandey v. Ramji Prasad Yadav (2009 SC), N.S. Varadachari v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (2010 Madras), and R. Swaminathan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu High Court Campus Chennai (2014 Madras).

It was determined that the complainant lacked the standing to file the complaint against the petitioner, as there was no advocate-client relationship between them. The complaint could only be validly filed by the decree-holders if they had any allegations against the petitioner, not by the judgment debtor.

The Court concluded, “Since the issue of locus affects the core of the matter and is contrary to law, all other arguments by the petitioner regarding the need for a reason to believe for initiating proceedings under Section 35 of the Act are unnecessary to address. The complaint was not maintainable by the complainant before the Bar Council.” Thus, the Court allowed the petition, nullified the Bar Council’s notice, and dismissed the proceedings.