The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed an order passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh that suspended an advocate from practice for 10 years on allegations of bigamy. The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla ruled that the disciplinary order was passed ex parte in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically noting that the suspension order was issued on February 23, 2025, even though the show cause notice had fixed the hearing date for March 10, 2025.
The Court termed the action “premature” and observed that the petitioner had not been convicted of the alleged offence, distinguishing it from cases where moral turpitude is established through conviction.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Advocate Sushil Kumar Rawat, approached the High Court challenging the order dated February 23, 2025, passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The Bar Council had barred him from practicing at the District Court, Lucknow, or before any other authority in India for a period of 10 years.
The petitioner contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings were carried out behind his back without serving him any notice. He argued that the punishment was baseless as he had not been convicted of bigamy, and further submitted that even if bigamy were proved, it does not amount to an offence involving “moral turpitude.”
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, argued that the suspension order was passed without due notice. On the legal question of moral turpitude, he relied on a Single Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Kishor Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 6488 of 2025), which held that for an offence to involve moral turpitude, the act must be “inherently ‘base’, ‘vile’, ‘depraved’ or having ‘any connection showing depravity’.”
The counsel submitted that the act of bigamy does not fall within this definition and would not “shock the conscience of the general public.”
Respondent’s Submissions: Representing the Bar Council of U.P., the counsel submitted that a corrected order had been served upon the petitioner, though the Court noted that no proof of service was provided despite time being granted.
On the issue of bigamy and moral turpitude, the respondent relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Mohanasudaram v. The President of Chartered Accountants of India (AIR 2013 MADRAS 221). In that case, the removal of a Chartered Accountant was upheld, with the court observing that the offence of bigamy comes within the meaning of moral turpitude as it involves acting contrary to law and indulging in “shameful, wicked and base activities.”
The respondent further argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench examined the concept of ‘moral turpitude’ and the procedural validity of the Bar Council’s order.
On Moral Turpitude: The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in SBI v. P. Soupramaniane (2019), which established tests for moral turpitude, including whether the act shocks the moral conscience of society, whether the motive was base, and whether the perpetrator would be considered of depraved character.
The Bench distinguished the present case from the P. Mohanasudaram judgment cited by the respondents. The Court observed:
“The Madras High Court in P. Mohanasudaram (Supra) dealt with a case wherein the person had been convicted of Bigamy. In the present case, there is no conviction for bigamy till date. On this ground alone the judgment is distinguishable from the present case in hand.”
On Violation of Natural Justice: The Court found a glaring procedural lapse in the Bar Council’s proceedings regarding the timeline of the notice and the order. The Bench noted:
“The show cause notice was issued on February 17, 2025 for appearance on March 10, 2025 and impugned order was passed on February 23, 2025 which makes it evident that the impugned order is passed ex parte without granting any opportunity of hearing which is violative of the principle of natural justice.”
The Court further stated it was not convinced by the “proof” provided by the authorities regarding the service of notice. The Judges held that the ex parte order suspending the petitioner for 10 years could not be sustained.
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated February 23, 2025.
The Bench directed the Bar Council authorities to:
- Provide a proper notice to the petitioner.
- Pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law within a period of 12 weeks.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sushil Kumar Rawat Vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman And Another
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 10621 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla
- Counsel for Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar, Dushyant Kumar Nayak
- Counsel for Respondent: Subhash Chandra Pandey, Shahid Salam, Zeba Wasi
- Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:78203-DB
