A Woman Advocate’s license was suspended for two years by the Bar Council of India (BCI) over allegations of misconduct stemming from a 2016 dispute at the Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI) bar room. The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna stayed the order, citing serious procedural lapses and raising critical concerns about the handling of disciplinary proceedings against the advocate.

The case revolved around an alleged misconduct incident reported by three members of the Advocate Association of Western India and raised critical questions about procedural propriety in disciplinary actions against advocates.

The advocate in question was accused of throwing briefs belonging to fellow advocates onto the floor during a dispute over space and facilities in the AAWI bar room at the Bombay High Court premises on April 4, 2016. Despite the alleged incident being recorded, no complaint was lodged at the time by AAWI. It was only after a year and five months, on September 8, 2017, that three members of the association filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG), alleging misconduct. The petitioner, however, claimed that the complaint was retaliatory, arising from her earlier complaints of sexual harassment against some BCMG members, adding that the allegations were vague and lacked substantive details. It was also noted that the Complaint’s transfer from BCMG to BCI was done without informing Petitioner.

The Court heavily criticized the BCI for its procedural shortcomings. Notably, it was pointed out that affidavits containing new allegations and evidence were submitted by the complainants, a day before the scheduled hearing, leaving the advocate with no opportunity to respond. The Court remarked "Further the principles of natural justice appear to have been thrown to the winds which was expected from a responsible statutory body," emphasizing that the order was hastily passed on the same day of the hearing, without affording the petitioner adequate time to address the additional material submitted on which the Court noted this conduct is neither acceptable nor logical and raises serious doubts about the legal propriety of the impugned order.

Another significant lapse highlighted by the Court was the delay in communicating the order. The Court noted, "What is further disturbing is that although an order was stated to have been passed on April 14, 2024, it was forwarded to the petitioner after almost four months,".

The Court further raised concerns over the transfer of the disciplinary case from BCMG to BCI without the petitioner’s knowledge. The advocate was not informed that the case, initially under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, would be adjudicated under Section 36 by the BCI. The Court noted, "A party to the proceedings not being informed of the jurisdictional authority itself is fatal to all norms of fairness." The petitioner, an advocate with 24 years of practice, argued that the suspension of her license violated her rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, causing undue hardship as a single mother supporting two daughters. The Court recognized the severe consequences, stating that the impugned order effectively takes away the source of livelihood of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the AAWI had never filed a formal complaint, and the complainants' motives were questionable, with the Court noting, "Prima facie, it appears that the intent of the complainants was extraneous to the alleged incident." The Court granted interim relief, staying the suspension order and allowing the petitioner to resume practice. It directed a reply affidavit within six weeks and emphasized the need for a full hearing to address the issues.

Case Title: An Advocate Versus. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Santosh Paul, Senior Advocate

Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Yogendra Rajgor, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap