JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate. She was appointed as
Assistant Government Pleader. While she was acting in the said capacity, one Mrs. P.Revathi, Advocate, gave a representation to the 2nd respondent herein raising certain allegations against the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Special Officer in the 2nd respondent’s office and a report was submitted to the 2nd respondent. The said report was forwarded to the Government by 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O. Rt. No.856, dated 12-11-1996 terminating the services of the petitioner as Assistant Government Pleader. While so, on 22-1-1997, the petitioner filed a complaint before the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent herein and also against the said Revathi and one Mrs. Nagamani, Advocates, raising certain allegations against them. It was registered as Complaint case No. 10/1997. The respondents therein filed a reply and on consideration of the entire material on record, the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the 1st respondent to deal with the said complaint passed an order on 28-7-1997 rejecting the said complaint. Meanwhile, on 22-7-1997, the 1st respondent issued the impugned show-cause notice to the petitioner, after registering a case against her i.e., Complaint Case No.76/1997. The body of the show-cause notice reads as under:
“Whereas upon a complaint filed by you in CC No. 10/1997, the same was placed before the Bar Council along with the comments of the respondents at its meeting held on 12-07-1997 for its consideration. After considering the same, the Bar Council has reason to believe that there is a prima facie case against you in view of the wild allegations made in the above complaint and also the facts revealed in the comments of Smt. Nagamani i.e., the third respondent in CC No.10/1997. It is further resolved to take the same on file as suo-motu and register it as Complaint Case No.76/1997 and that this case is referred to Disciplinary Committee No.IV of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh for enquiry and disposal under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. The said Disciplinary Committee has fixed at 11-00 a.m. on 17-8-1997 for hearing of the case at the Bar Council office, High Court Premises, Hyderabad, in accordance with procedure prescribed under the relevant rules of the Council.” Questioning the authority of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned show-cause notice and registering a case against her suo motu, the petitioner filed this writ petition contending that the 1st respondent has no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate on roll suo motu and that under Section 35 of the Act, the State Bar Council has got the power of registering a case against any advocate only in the event of receipt of a complaint raising any specific allegations from anybody. It is further contended that the Bar Council has no power to directly register a complaint against an advocate without giving any opportunity of hearing to such advocate.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. At the outset, it must be recorded that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly unsustainable in view of the clear and unambiguous language used in Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The intendment of the Legislature behind employing such language is quite apparent. Before harping on to interpret the language employed in Section 35, it is quite useful to have a cursory glance at various provisions of the Advocates Act and also the circumstances under which the said enactment came to be passed by the Parliament.
4. Legal profession unlike other professions, which are generally taken up with the sole object of earning money, is a profession of high dignity. A legal practitioner has got some moral obligations towards his client, towards the Court and at the same time towards the Society in general. The first and foremost
of all such obligations is that he should never act contrary to the basic principles of morality and should always act honestly. He should not do any act or advise his client to do any act which would disrespect the established judiciary in the country. He shall always strive to assist the Bench in the enforcement of the law of the land. He should conduct himself with utmost dignity and self-respect in the Court. All these are the self-imposed restrictions which the members of the legal fraternity have put on themselves. There was no mechanism prior to the commencement of the Act which could have a check upon the conduct of an advocate. But, realising the need to have some check upon the profession so that the standards that are laid down in the field in the yester years should not go down, the Parliament, on the recommendations of the Law Commission, enacted the Advocates Act, 1961. It was meant to amend and consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. The enactment deals with qualifications, enrolment, right to practice and discipline of the advocates. So as to ensure discipline, certain norms were prescribed in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The Bar Councils are entrusted with the duty of admitting persons as advocates, and also entertaining cases of misconduct against any advocate on its roll. On a reading of Section 6 and 7, it is no doubt clear that the Bar Councils are vested with the power of determining cases of misconduct against any advocate and thereby maintaining the standards of the profession. Thus, it is vested with enormous authority in dealing with cases of misconduct, the Bar Council of a State is further empowered, under Section 35, to impose punishment against any advocate who is guilty of any misconduct. For the sake of convenience, Section 35, insofar as it is relevant for our present purpose, is reproduced below:
“35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct :-(1) When on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar
Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.”
On a careful reading of Section 35, it is very clear that the Bar Council has the power to register a complaint against any advocate either upon receipt of a complaint or otherwise. The words ‘or otherwise’ means – the complaints received otherwise. It may be a oral complaint; it may be a complaint published in a newspaper by any affected person or it may be a pseudonomous complaint, In the case of a complaint, there is no dispute that the Bar Council does have the power to register a complaint. But, in the teeth of Section 35 of the Act which is couched in clear and unambiguous language with the words ‘or otherwise’ employed therein, the contention that the Bar Council does not have the power to register cases suo motu, is ill-conceived. As already observed, the purpose behind employing such words is with a view to protect and preserve the professional ethics and etiquette among the legal practitioners. Therefore, if the object that is enshrined in the Act is sought to be achieved, the Bar Councils, which are entrusted with the duty of effectively discharging such solemn object, must act firmly and must not hesitate to take cognizance of any complaints which are received against any advocate alleging professional misconduct, may be they are in writing or may be oral. In view of the clear intendment of the Parliament in employing the words ‘or otherwise’ in the provision, it cannot be said that the Bar Council must take cognizance of only those complaints which are in writing. If the provisions is interpreted in such a manner, it would lead to a very hazardous situation. It must be interpreted in the otherway. If the Bar Council has reason to believe that there is some substance in the complaint which is given orally against any advocate on its roll, it is empowered under the provisions of Section 35 of the Act to register a case suo motu
against such advocate. In my humble opinion, the power of taking suo motu cognizance is very much essential for the survival of the legal profession and to maintain its nobility. For these reasons, the contention of the petitioner must be held to be unsustainable and it is accordingly rejected.
5. Another contention is that before registering a case against an advocate, the advocate must be given an opportunity of hearing. But, the Act did not prescribe such a procedure. Even otherwise also, question of giving opportunity to the delinquent, against whom certain allegations are levelled, arises only during the course of enquiry and not before. If the Bar Council is of the opinion that there is prima facie case against any advocate, it is entitled to register a case at once and order for enquiry. Question of giving opportunity at that stage does not, therefore, arise. Of course, as already stated, the advocate will have the right to deny the allegation raised against him/her and defend his/her case before the Disciplinary Committee during the course of enquiry by taking all the pleas that are legally available to him/her. For these reasons, the contention raised in this regard is also unsustainable. There are no merits in the writ petition.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.