The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against Advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, held that the prosecution of an advocate by an opposing party’s representative was “highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for.” The Court established that ordinarily, a professional relationship between the complainant and the advocate is a precondition for invoking disciplinary jurisdiction for “professional misconduct” under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Court quashed the complaint and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the BCMG for entertaining what it termed a “frivolous complaint.”
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a complaint filed in 2022 with the BCMG by Khimji Devji Parmar against Advocate Rajiv Narula. The complainant alleged that his late father, Devji Parmar, was a partner in the firm M/s. Volga Enterprises with Dara Nariman Sarkari. The firm was involved in a property dispute concerning land in Village Valnai, Taluka Malad.
A suit (No. 2541 of 1985) regarding this property was pending before the Bombay High Court, instituted by M/s Unique Construction. The complainant claimed that after his father’s death in 2009, he discovered the suit had been disposed of based on “Consent Terms” without the knowledge or signature of Dara Nariman Sarkari, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit.
The complaint alleged that Advocate Rajiv Narula, representing the plaintiff M/s. Unique Construction, had suppressed from the High Court the material fact that Dara Sarkari had not signed the Consent Terms. This, the complainant argued, amounted to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which defrauded the legal heirs of their rights in the suit property.
On July 6, 2023, a Judge-Advocate of the BCMG passed an order stating a prima facie case was made out and referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee for inquiry. Advocate Narula challenged this referral in the Bombay High Court, which passed an interim order on November 4, 2023, staying the disciplinary proceedings. The BCMG then appealed this stay order to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The BCMG, represented by its counsel, vehemently argued that the High Court’s intervention was premature. It contended that the referral order was interlocutory and that at the stage of taking cognizance, only a prima facie finding is required, not detailed reasons. It was further submitted that the advocate had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Bar Council of India.
Conversely, counsel for Advocate Narula argued that the complaint was ex facie malicious and a gross abuse of process, as he had never represented the complainant or his predecessors. It was asserted that entertaining a complaint filed by the advocate of an opposing party was impermissible. Furthermore, the referral order by the BCMG was criticized as being cryptic and lacking any application of mind.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court, while noting it would normally relegate parties to the High Court for a final decision, found the facts of the case to be so “stark and glaring” that it was persuaded to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings in their entirety.
The bench made several key observations:
1. On Jural Relationship: The Court found it undisputed that Advocate Narula never represented the complainant, his father, or their alleged associates. His role was limited to identifying his own client in the Consent Terms, which remain legally valid. The Court laid down a crucial legal principle:
“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’.”
2. On the Cryptic Referral Order: The Court heavily criticized the BCMG’s order referring the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, describing it as “absolutely cryptic and laconic” and suffering from “total non-application of mind.” It emphasized that such a referral has “serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing.”
3. On the Mandate of Section 35, Advocates Act: The Court analyzed Section 35(1) of the Act, which requires a State Bar Council to have “reason to believe” that an advocate is guilty of misconduct before referring a case to its disciplinary committee. The bench held that recording such reasons is a sine qua non for a valid reference. Quoting its previous decision in Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that a Bar Council must apply its mind to form a “reasoned belief” that a prima facie case exists.
The Court concluded that the BCMG’s order did not meet this statutory requirement, stating:
“In the absence of such prima facie satisfaction, the statutory requirement under Section 35 remains non-complied, and the order of reference is ex facie in teeth of Section 35(1) of the 1961 Act. Hence, the same cannot be sustained.”
Decision
The Supreme Court quashed Complaint No. 27 of 2023 and all proceedings arising from it. It also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa “for entertaining the frivolous complaint and for dragging the respondent-advocate Shri Rajiv Narula to this Court.” The amount is to be paid to Advocate Narula.
Connected Case Also Dismissed with Costs
In a connected matter heard alongside, the Court dismissed two Special Leave Petitions filed by a litigant, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, and the BCMG against Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. In that case, the complainant had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Shastri merely for identifying the deponent of an affidavit filed by the opposing party.
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s order quashing those proceedings, finding the complaint to be founded on “malicious and spiteful insinuations.” The bench held, “An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit.” It termed the action a “manifestly a case of malicious prosecution of the advocate at the behest of the opponent litigant.”
The Court dismissed the petitions and imposed costs of ₹50,000 each on the complainant and the BCMG, to be paid to Advocate Shastri.
