Setting aside an interim suspension order against two advocates, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, has ruled that the Bar Council has no statutory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961 to place an advocate under suspension at an interim stage during pending disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that an order of suspension under Section 35(3)(c) of the Act is in the nature of a final order and cannot be passed as an interim measure.
Background of the Case
The ruling came on a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Akhilesh Jaiswal, President of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow, and Avnish Dixit, Secretary of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow. The petitioners challenged an order dated September 26, 2026, passed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which suspended their enrollment until further orders.
The proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee were initiated on allegations described as serious in nature, stating that the advocates had rejected a resolution passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as well as an order of its Chairman, and had published the same in daily newspapers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
When the matter was called out before the Disciplinary Committee on September 26, 2026, the petitioners appeared through their advocates, Shri Anish Kumar Singh and Shri Jyotiresh Pandey, who filed their vakalatnama. The petitioners also moved an application requesting that a copy of the complaint be provided to them. However, without deciding the application, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee adjourned the matter while simultaneously ordering:
“Heard. The next date of hearing is fixed as 11. 10.2026, in the meantime license (Enrollment) of both the Advocates is suspended till further order. They shall not appear in any Court of law as counsel.”
The Disciplinary Committee further directed its office to transmit copies of the suspension order to the District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow, through email, as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, and the District Magistrate, Lucknow. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court.
Representation and Appearances
Before the High Court, learned Senior Advocate Sri Sharad Pathak appeared for the petitioners, assisted by advocates Sri Mayank Pandey, Sri Aarav Singh, and Ms. Priya Singh.
Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 (Bar Council of India).
Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel, represented Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 (the State Bar Council authorities).
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the impugned order, the Division Bench observed that although the petitioners had sought a copy of the complaint, the record remained silent on whether that copy had been provided, whether it was furnished earlier, or whether the request was deemed unmaintainable. The Bench noted that adjourning the hearing to October 11, 2026, while simultaneously suspending the advocates’ licences until further orders, was inconsistent with the law.
Referring to the statutory scheme of Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court pointed out that after affording an opportunity of hearing, the Disciplinary Committee can only pass orders enumerated thereunder, namely: dismissing the complaint or filing proceedings, reprimanding the advocate, suspending the advocate from practice for a specified period, or removing their name from the State roll of advocates.
Critiquing the interim suspension, the Court held:
“In the present case, it appears that the authority has suspended the advocates/petitioners from practice till further orders. Firstly, the suspension being for an indefinite period, without specifying its duration, appears to be unsustainable in law. Secondly, once the Disciplinary Committee had passed an order of suspension, no further adverse action could have been taken against the petitioners without issuance of a fresh notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. According to this Court, the order of suspension as mentioned in Section 35 (3) (c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a final order and could not be passed at an interim stage by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.”
The Court drew support from the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in R. Jim v/s. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (2025 SCC OnLine Mad 14556), citing paragraph 122 of that decision:
“122. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry does not have the power to place a person under interim suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. We hold as follows:- (i) The Advocates Act has not conferred the power on the Bar Council to place an Advocate under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry; (ii) By an act of interpretation, the Courts cannot expand the powers of a statutory body which has not been specifically conferred; (iii) When the Advocates Act, under Section 35 contemplates a procedure of issuance of notice, framing of charges, due trial and hearing before passing an order of suspension, an exparte interim order does not pass muster; (iv) When Section 6 of the Advocates Act. 1961, reads as “functions” of the Bar Council, the same cannot be interpreted as conferring “powers” on the Bar Council; (v) In any event, as the order is inherently contradictory and one passed without hearing the writ petitioner, the same is quashed.”
The Bench held that the procedure adopted by the State Bar Council authority was neither in consonance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, nor consistent with the law laid down in R. Jim.
Final Decision
Holding the impugned interim suspension to be legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated September 26, 2026.
The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on the scheduled date of October 11, 2026. It further directed that if any documents required to be supplied have not yet been furnished, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh must provide them in accordance with law within 24 hours of a request by the petitioners. The Court also clarified that the petitioners shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Akhilesh Jaiswal And Another Versus Bar Council Of India Thru. Chairman Rouse Avenue New Delhi And 2 Others
Case No.: WRITC No. 10924 of 2026
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Date: October 1, 2026
