The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) which had held an advocate guilty of professional misconduct. The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, ruled that the finding of misconduct was legally unsustainable as the BCI failed to consider that the complainant had amicably resolved the dispute and expressly sought to withdraw the complaint through a sworn affidavit.
The Court observed that once the complainant expressed satisfaction with the advocate’s services and the “misunderstanding” regarding court costs was resolved, the “substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist.”
Case Background
The appeal was filed by Monty Goyal (Appellant-Advocate) under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, challenging the judgment dated April 4, 2025, passed by the BCI Disciplinary Committee. The BCI had found the appellant guilty of negligence and professional misconduct for failing to deposit costs in a timely manner, which led to the dismissal of a quashing petition filed by his client, Navrang Singh (Respondent). The BCI had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh, with a default stipulation of a one-year suspension of his license.
The facts of the case date back to 2018, when the respondent engaged the appellant to file a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash FIR No. 150/2018 (registered at Police Station Samrala, Ludhiana) based on a compromise. On September 28, 2018, the High Court allowed the petition subject to the respondent depositing costs of Rs. 10,000 within two weeks.
However, the costs were not deposited within the stipulated time. Consequently, on November 16, 2018, the High Court recalled its order and dismissed the petition for want of prosecution, reviving the criminal proceedings. The appellant subsequently filed an application for recall, and on January 14, 2020, the High Court restored the petition but enhanced the costs to Rs. 50,000. Aggrieved by the initial negligence, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.
Developments During Pendency
During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the advocate and the client resolved their differences. The High Court, noting the settlement, modified its order on March 2, 2021, waiving the enhanced costs. Upon compliance with the original cost requirement, the High Court finally quashed the FIR on December 12, 2022.
Following this, the respondent submitted a sworn affidavit dated December 15, 2022, to the State Bar Council. In the affidavit, he stated that the complaint was born out of a “misunderstanding regarding costs,” that he was satisfied with the appellant’s services, and that he desired to withdraw the complaint. However, as the State Bar Council could not conclude the proceedings within one year, the matter was transferred to the BCI.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court noted that despite the respondent’s affidavit and request to withdraw the complaint, the BCI Disciplinary Committee proceeded to adjudicate the matter and hold the appellant guilty.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the Bench, observed:
“A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI completely glossed over the aforesaid material and vital aspect while holding the appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct. The Committee failed to appreciate that the substratum of the complaint had ceased to exist once the dispute was amicably resolved and the complaint was sought to be withdrawn by the respondent-complainant himself by way of a duly sworn affidavit.”
The Court further criticized the procedure adopted by the BCI, noting that the finding of guilt was based on “bald allegations” without proper evidence. The Bench stated:
“It appears that the appellant-advocate has been held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations contained in the complaint, without the complainant being examined on oath and without affording the appellant-advocate the indefeasible right of cross-examination, thereby rendering the finding of professional misconduct legally unsustainable.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that since the genesis of the dispute was a mere misunderstanding which stood resolved, and the complainant had expressed complete satisfaction with the advocate’s services, the BCI’s order could not be sustained in law or facts.
The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2026, setting aside the BCI’s judgment dated April 4, 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Monty Goyal vs. Navrang Singh
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2026
- Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
