The Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) order suspending a woman lawyer’s license over alleged misconduct, highlighting serious lapses in procedural fairness. The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna.
The Court observed that the BCI had failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by not granting the petitioner adequate time to respond to new evidence. The affidavits supporting the complaint were served on the petitioner on April 14, 2024, the same day the impugned order was passed.
Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice Compromised
In its judgment, the Court criticized the BCI for compromising procedural fairness, a fundamental expectation from a statutory body. It noted that the suspension order, which carries significant civil consequences for the petitioner—a practicing lawyer of 24 years—was issued without affording her an opportunity to adequately address the allegations.
The Court stated, “The principles of natural justice appear to have been thrown to the winds… the affidavits of the complaint were served on the petitioner on the day of the hearing itself, and astonishingly, on the same day, the impugned order was passed.”
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on April 4, 2016, in Room No. 18 of the Bombay High Court, designated as the bar room for members of the Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI). The petitioner allegedly threw the briefs of three lawyers on the floor following a dispute over space and facilities. Although the incident was recorded, no immediate complaint was filed by AAWI.
Over a year later, on September 8, 2017, the complainants filed a grievance with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG). The proceedings were later transferred to the BCI without informing the petitioner. In April 2024, the BCI suspended the petitioner for two years based on these allegations.
Petitioner Challenges BCI’s Actions
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the complaint was retaliatory, as it was filed after the petitioner had lodged sexual harassment complaints against members of BCMG. Furthermore, the counsel highlighted procedural flaws, including the late submission of evidence and significant delays in communication. Notably, the BCI’s suspension order, dated April 14, 2024, was not sent to the petitioner until August 29, 2024, and was received only on September 2, 2024.
Court’s Observations on Delay and Legal Propriety
The Court raised concerns over the seven-year delay in resolving the complaint and the four-month delay in forwarding the order to the petitioner. “This delay raises serious doubts on the legal propriety of the impugned order,” the Court noted.
The Bench emphasized that both procedural and substantive fairness are critical in disciplinary proceedings, especially when they impact a professional’s livelihood. The Court underscored the need for transparency and accountability in such cases.
The High Court’s decision to stay the suspension order underscores the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions, particularly when they affect an individual’s professional career. The case highlights the necessity for statutory bodies like the BCI to adhere to the principles of natural justice to maintain the integrity of their proceedings.
