The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has set aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and directed it to reconsider a revision petition filed by advocate Sailesh Bhansali against senior lawyer Alok Dhir and others. The case, Sailesh Bhansali vs. Alok Dhir & Ors., was heard by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, who found that the BCI failed to provide any reasoning for its decision to dismiss the petition.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Sailesh Bhansali before the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), alleging professional misconduct by the respondent advocates, including Alok Dhir. The BCD dismissed the complaint on October 5, 2015. Bhansali subsequently challenged this order before the BCI through a revision petition (RP No. 83/2015). However, the BCI, in its order dated March 30, 2024, summarily dismissed the revision petition without providing any reasons.
Bhansali then approached the Supreme Court through a civil appeal (Civil Appeal Diary No. 36274/2024), arguing that the BCI’s order was arbitrary and lacked justification.
Legal Issues Involved
Duty to Provide Reasoned Orders:
The core issue in this case was whether the BCI was obligated to provide reasons while affirming a lower authority’s order. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that even an order of affirmation must contain at least some reasoning.
Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the absence of reasons in the BCI’s order violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard and receive a reasoned decision.
Scope of Judicial Review:
The Court examined the extent of judicial scrutiny over disciplinary decisions taken by the BCI and lower bar councils.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, observed that the BCI’s order dismissing the revision petition lacked any reasoning and, therefore, could not stand. The bench noted:
“The ‘what’, i.e., the conclusion, must have the ‘why’, i.e., the reasons (at least in brief), to stand on, which is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of affirmation.”
Citing the precedent set in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshtriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney [(2009) 4 SCC 240], the Court held that while an order of affirmation may not require an elaborate discussion, it must at least reflect an application of mind through brief reasoning.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the BCI’s order and directed it to reconsider the revision petition within six months. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint and that all points remained open for argument before the BCI.
Counsel Representing the Parties
For the Appellant (Sailesh Bhansali): Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, assisted by advocates A. Karthik, Aditya N. Mehta, Arsh Khan, Niyomi Jariwala, Smrithi Suresh, Ujjwal Sharma, and Sugam Agrawal.
For the Respondents (Alok Dhir & Others): Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji, along with advocates Ashu Kansal, Dipanshu Krishnan, and Karan Batura.
