Holding

Disposal of complaints under Section 35 by State Bar Councils within one year is mandatory; transfer to the Bar Council of India is exceptional and the BCI must also dispose of transferred complaints within one year, with the Court directing both bodies to comply.

Summary

The appellant K. Anjinappa filed a professional misconduct complaint against an advocate before the Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council, which failed to dispose of the complaint within the one‑year period prescribed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, leading to its transfer to the Bar Council of India (BCI) under Section 36B. The BCI dismissed the complaint without addressing its merits, prompting the appellant to appeal. The Supreme Court held that disposal of complaints by State Bar Councils within one year is mandatory and that transfer to the BCI is an exception; the BCI itself must also dispose of transferred complaints within one year. The Court directed both the BCI and all State Bar Councils to adhere to these timelines and to issue appropriate procedural guidelines, noting that the specific complaint had subsequently been disposed of by the State Bar Council, so no further order was required on it. The appeal was therefore disposed of with the Court’s directions.

Issues considered

Whether a State Bar Council is mandated to dispose of a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within one year.
Whether failure to do so necessitates automatic transfer of the complaint to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B.
Whether the Bar Council of India can dismiss a transferred complaint without considering its merits.
Whether the Bar Council of India is required to dispose of transferred complaints within one year of receipt.
Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions to improve the disciplinary mechanism of the Bar Councils.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 35, s. 36, s. 36B, s. 38, s. 48B

Subjects

Advocates Actdisciplinary proceedingsBar Council of IndiaState Bar Councilcomplaint disposalprofessional misconductSection 35Section 36Btime limit

Judgment

1034 [2021]
SUPREME COURT 9 S.C.R. 1034
REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A K. ANJINAPPA
v.
K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7478 of 2019)
B DECEMBER 17, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.35, 36, 36B – Held: Disposal of a
complaint received by a State Bar Council u/s.35 within a period of
one year from the date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory –
C
Only in an exceptional case, by giving valid reasons to be recorded
as to why the complaint could not be disposed of within one year,
such complaints are required to be transferred to the Bar Council
of India as provided u/s.36B – Thus, the transfer of the complaint(s)
received u/s.35 from the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of
D India is an exception – Further, on such transfer the Bar Council of
India shall also dispose of the transferred proceedings/complaints
within one year from receipt thereof – In the present case, the
complaint filed by appellant against an advocate before the Andhra
Pradesh State Bar Council was not decided for one year and,
therefore it was transferred to the Bar Council of India which
E
dismissed it without considering it on merits – However, now
subsequently the complaint has been disposed of by the State Bar
Council – Revision is pending before the Bar Council of India –
Thus, no further order is required on the complaint made by the
appellant.
F
Advocates Act, 1961 – s.36B – Object and purpose of –
Discussed.
Advocates Act, 1961 – Bar Council of India/State Bar Councils
– Duty cast upon – Discussed – Judicial Deprecation.
G Advocates Act, 1961 – s.36B – Disposal of complaints –
Mechanism for – Directions and suggestions – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bar
Council of India wherein it is stated that in last five years, 1,273
H
1034
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1035

complaints filed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 have A
been transferred to the Bar Council of India as the concerned
State Bar Council(s) did not dispose of the complaint(s) under
Section 35 of the Advocates Act within one year. During the years
2020 and 2021, there have been lesser number of complaints
filed. But earlier from 2016 to 2019, the number of complaints
B
transferred from the State Bar Councils to Bar Council of India
have been steadily increasing from 171, 242, 214 and 490
respectively. These statistics not only reflect on the increasing
number of complaints being filed against the advocates but also
the fact that the State Bar Councils have not discharged their
duty in disposing of these complaints within a period of one year C
and have simply allowed the complaints to be transferred by
operation of law from the State Bar Councils to the Bar Council
of India in terms of Section 36B of the Advocates Act. The object
and purpose of the said provision must be understood in its right
perspective. It is not simply to pass on the responsibility from
D
the State Bar Councils to the Bar Council of India and thereby
avoid their responsibility of inquiry into the complaints that are
filed before them. The aforesaid section states that the
disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of a
complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and the
proceedings shall be concluded within a period of one year from E
the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the
proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case
may be, failing which, such proceedings shall stand transferred
to the Bar Council of India. The object of transfer of such
proceedings to the Bar Council of India is an intimation that the
F
State Bar Council has failed to dispose of the complaint within a
period of one year as aforesaid. In such circumstance, the Bar
Council of India will have to dispose of the same as if it were a
proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section
36 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Advocates Act
states that the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India G
in disposing of any case under Section 36 shall observe as far as
may be the procedure laid down in Section 35 the references to
the Advocate General in that section be considered as references
to the Attorney General of India. Under sub-section (3) of Section
35 of the Advocates Act, there is a mandate for the disciplinary
H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A committee of a State Bar Council giving notice to the Advocate
General and opportunity of being heard before making an order
under the said sub-section. Having regard to sub-section (3) of
Section 36 in respect of a transferred complaint, possibly notice
may have to be given to the Attorney General of India before
disposing of the complaint as per sub- section (2) of Section 36 of
B
the Act. Then in such a case the inquiry proceedings would not
only become complicated but also delay the entire proceeding.
[Paras 5, 8.1][1041-C-D; 1043-C-F; 1044-D-F; 1055-D-G]
1.2 The delay on the part of the respective State Bar
Council(s) in not disposing the complaint(s) within a period of
C one year is not approved and appreciated. Disposal of a complaint
received by the State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period
of one year from the date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory
and the concerned State Bar Council(s) have to dispose of such
complaints as expeditiously and in each case the proceeding shall
D have to be concluded within a period of one year. Only in an
exceptional case, by giving valid reasons to be recorded as to
why the complaint could not be disposed of within a period of one
year, such complaints are required to be transferred to the Bar
Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates
Act. Therefore, the transfer of the complaint(s) received under
E Section 35 of the Advocates Act from the State Bar Council to
the Bar Council of India is an exception. However, for reasons
best known to the concerned State Bar Councils, the complaints
are not being disposed received by them under Section 35 within
one year. This may be because the complaints are filed against
F the fellow Advocates and they would not like to displease the
Advocates against whom the complaints are made. There could
also be some valid reasons for not disposing of the complaint(s)
within a period of one year. But for the same, the reasons have to
be assigned/recorded as to why the complaint(s) could not be
disposed of within a period of one year. In many cases, the
G complaints are deliberately kept pending for more than one year,
so that the same shall be transferred to the Bar Council of India
as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, by passing
the buck. [Para 9][1045-G-H; 1046-C-F]

H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1037

1.3 It is the duty of the Bar Council of India/State Bar council A
to improve its functioning on the disciplinary side. Thus, under
the Advocates Act, a duty is cast upon the Bar Council of India/
State Bar Councils to safeguard the integrity of the legal
profession. It is duty of the Bar Council of India/respective State
Bar Councils to ensure the nobility of the legal system at all costs.
B
The powers to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members
of the Bar are provided under Section 35 and 36B of the
Advocates Act. The mandate is to dispose of the complaint
received under Section 35 and/or Section 36 within a period of
one year from the date of receipt of the said complaint and/or
from the date of such proceeding to the Bar Council of India. By C
not disposing of the complaint within the stipulated time provided
under the Act would tantamount to failure on their part to perform
the duty cast under the Advocates Act. [Paras 9.1, 10][1046-F;
1049-E-G]
R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, High Court of D
Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 : [2019] 1
SCR 589; In re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry
of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi; Kailash
Vasdev, Advocate and Kitty Kumaramangalam (Smt.),
Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 619: [1995] 3 SCR 450;
Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakrama, E
(2012) 1 SCC 741 : [2011] 16 SCR 240; V.C.
Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, (1979) 1 SCC 308 : [1979]
1 SCR 1054; Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil v. Bar Council
of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 465 : [2017] 5 SCR
984; J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf, F
(1993) 2 SCC 562 : [1993] 2 SCR 1006; Kokkanda B.
Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi, (2011) 12 SCC 600 :
[2011] 4 SCR 417; O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, (2011) 6 SCC 86 : [2011] 6 SCR 301;
Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma, (1978) 2 SCC
165 : [1978] 3 SCR 493 – relied on. G

1.4 The Bar Council of India is directed to issue appropriate
directions as stated by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India.
Even the Bar Council of India is also required to dispose of the
transferred complaint(s)/transferred proceeding(s) within a period
of one year from the date of receipt of such complaint(s)/ H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A proceeding(s). Therefore, the Bar Council of India is directed to
finally dispose of the transferred complaints expeditiously but
not later than one year from today and for which even the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may hold
circuit hearings. The respective State Bar Councils are also
directed to decide and dispose of the complaint(s) received by it
B
under Section 35 expeditiously and to conclude the same within
a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as
mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act. For an efficient
and quick disposal of the complaints by the Bar Council of India
vis-à-vis those complaints which have been transferred to it as
C per Section 36B of the Act, the Bar Council of India may consider
empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates and/or retired
judicial officers to act as Inquiry Officers where an inquiry would
be necessitated. On such inquiry being concluded the report of
the Inquiry Officers could be received by the Bar Council of India.
On consideration of the said inquiry report, the Bar Council of
D
India could pass appropriate orders on the complaint. The Bar
Council of India may issue suitable directions to the State Bar
Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose of
conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in
the respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry
E to transmit the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for
enabling it to take it further action in the matter. Now so far as
the present case is concerned, it is reported that subsequently
even the complaint made by the appellant-original complainant
No.1 has been disposed of by the State Bar Council against which
a revision application is pending before the Bar Council of India.
F
Thus, no further order is required on the complaint made by the
appellant. [Paras 11, 12, 12.1, 13 and 15][1055-D-F; 1056-B-C,
E-F; 1059-B]
Markand C. Gandhi Vs. Rohini M. Dandekar, (2008)
10 SCC 792; Indian Council Of Legal Aid & Advice
G vs. Bar Council Of India (1995) 1 SCC 732 : [1995]
1 SCR 304; Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M. Seervai
Advocate General Of Maharashtra Bombay (1970) 2
SCC 484 : [1971] 1 SCR 863; Bar Council of
Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291 :
H [1976] 2 SCR 48; Mangu Sihari Vs. Bar Council of
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1039

State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 AP 271 – relied A
on.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 1 SCR 589 relied on Para 9.1
[1995] 3 SCR 450 relied on Para 10.1 B
[2011] 16 SCR 240 relied on Para 10.2
[1979] 1 SCR 1054 relied on Para 10.3
[2017] 5 SCR 984 relied on Para 10.4
[1993] 2 SCR 1006 relied on Para 10.5 C
[2011] 4 SCR 417 relied on Para 10.6
[2011] 6 SCR 301 relied on Para 10.7
[1978] 3 SCR 493 relied on Para 10.8
[1995] 1 SCR 304 relied on Para 14 D
[1971] 1 SCR 863 relied on Para 14
[1976] 2 SCR 48 relied on Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7478
of 2019. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2015 of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I. Transfer Case No.152
of 2014.
Goli Ramakrishna, Sumanth Nookala, Advs. for the Appellant.
F
Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv., Shishir Pinaki, D. Mahesh Babu,
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
G
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated
12.12.2015 by which the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against his
Advocate, the appellant - original complainant No.1 has preferred the
present appeal under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 2. The appellant herein filed the Complaint Case No.20 of 2013
against his Advocate on the ground of professional misconduct. The
said complaint was filed initially before the Bar Council of State of Andhra
Pradesh. Though under the Advocates Act, the State Bar Council was
duty bound to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35
expeditiously and in each case the proceedings had to be concluded
B
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of complaint, the
State Bar Council did not dispose of the said complaint. Therefore, the
said complaint came to be transferred to the Bar Council of India as per
Section 36B of the Advocates Act.Now by the impugned order, the
complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint was filed
C by two complainants, namely, Shri K. Anjinappa (the appellant herein)
and one Shri S. Lakshmi Naryana (complainant No.2), however, the
said complaint was not signed by complainant No.2 – Shri S. Lakshmi
Narayana; that the matter is pending since 2013 to 2015. Having observed
so, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the
complaint, without further entering into the allegations made in the
D
complaint, by observing that in view of the above, the complaint is not at
all maintainable.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, the
appellant - original complainant No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
E
4. Considering the fact that the complaint filed by the appellant
herein – original complainant No.1 remained pending with the Bar Council
of State of Andhra Pradesh for more than one year and therefore the
same was transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of
the Advocates Act, by order dated 03.12.2021, this Court passed the
F following:-
“This is a case where the complaint against the Advocate was
before the State Bar Council – Andhra Pradesh. However, the
said complaint was not decided and disposed of by the State Bar
Council – Andhra Pradesh for a period of one year and, therefore,
G it was transferred to the Bar Council of India. The said complaint
has been dismissed without considering the complaint on merits.
In many cases the complaints are made before the concerned
State Bar Council(s), however, for one reason or another and
may be that the complaint is against an Advocate, who is a member
H of the concerned Bar Association/Bar Council, the complaints
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1041
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

are not decided and disposed of within a period of one year and A
ultimately they are required to be transferred to the Bar Council
of India.
We, therefore, call upon and direct the Bar Council of India to
place on record the particulars that in how many cases during the
last five years the complaints are transferred from the concerned B
State Bar Council(s) to the Bar Council of India and in how many
cases the transferred complaints/cases are decided and disposed
of.
Put up on 13.12.2021.”
5. In compliance of the order dated 03.12.2021, an affidavit has C
been filed on behalf of the Bar Council of India. In the affidavit, it is
stated that in last five years, 1,273 complaints filed under Section 35 of
the Advocates Act have been transferred to the Bar Council of India as
the concerned State Bar Council(s) did not dispose of the complaint(s)
under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within one year. The statement D
is reproduced herein below:-
Sr. State 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Disposed
1. Andhra Pradesh/ 4 11 45 20 2 0 82 0
Telangana
2. Assam etc. 10 0 1 0 0 1 12 0
3. Bihar 3 1 0 1 1 0 6 0
4. Chhattisgarh 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0
5. Delhi 11 0 0 25 0 1 37 6
E
6. Gujarat 0 3 4 8 1 0 16 0
7. Himachal 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0
Pradesh
8. Jharkhand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Karnataka 0 2 11 5 0 0 18 0
10. Kerala 0 28 1 0 0 0 29 0
11. Madhya Pradesh 3 19 20 8 0 0 50 0
12. Maharashtra 24 76 36 5 0 0 142 1 F
& Goa
13. Odisha 4 3 1 0 0 0 8 1
14. Punjab & 22 18 10 16 3 0 69 4
Haryana
15. Rajasthan 18 8 15 8 12 0 61 0
16. Tamil Nadu 26 31 11 42 24 0 134 4
17. Uttar Pradesh 32 38 7 346 69 31 523 11
18. Uttarakhand 4 2 0 0 0 9 15 0 G
19. West Bengal 9 2 51 4 0 0 66
20. Jammu and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kashmir
21. Tripura - - - - - - - -
22. Manipur - - - - - - - -
23. Meghalaya - - - - - - - -
Total 171 242 214 490 113 43 1273 27
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 6. Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Bar Council of India has submitted that amongst the
aforementioned 1273 transferred cases, a total of 646 cases have been
received by the Bar Council of India during the period commencing
January, 2019 to December, 2021 – during the pandemic situation. It is
pointed out that the aforesaid transferred cases could not be disposed of
B
by the Bar Council of India as the hearing could not be conducted through
virtual mode and the complainants were required to be physically present
before the Disciplinary Committee to lead their evidences.It is pointed
out that during the period starting mid-March, 2020, the State Bar Councils
as well as the Bar Council of India havenot been able to hold physical
C sittings of the Disciplinary Committees. It is stated that pendency of
transferred cases before the Bar Council of India is not intentional and
that the Bar Council of India is making every possible effort to clear the
pendency of such transferred cases by conducting expeditious hearings.
7. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate and
D Chairman of the Bar Council of India, who is also present during the
hearing, has fairly conceded that State Bar Councils have to dispose of
the complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within
a period of one year. He has stated that the Bar Council of India shall
issue necessary instructions to the respective State Bar Councils in
exercise of power under Section 48B of the Advocates Act directing all
E State Bar Councils or any Committee thereof to dispose of the
complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within a
period of one year positively and without fail and if for any valid reason(s),
the State Bar council is not able to dispose of the complaint(s) within a
period of one year, then along with the reasons to be recorded as to why
F the said complaint(s) could not be disposed of within a period of one
year, the said complaint be transferred to the Bar Council of India as per
Section 36B of the Advocates Act.
8. We are not at all impressed by the reasoning given by the learned
counsel on behalfof the Bar Council of Indiafor not disposing of the
G transferred complaint(s) by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council
of India. The COVID-19 pandemic commenced only in March, 2020.
As per the chart submitted by the Bar Council of India, in the year 2016,
a total of 171 cases; in the year 2017, a total of 242 cases; in the year of
2018, a total of 214 cases and in the year 2019, a total of 490 cases were
transferred to the Bar Council of India. At-least those cases could have
H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1043
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

been disposed of by the Bar Council ofIndia at the earliest. One can A
appreciate the delay in disposal of the transferred complaint(s) received
in the year 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic but not for the
earlier period.
8.1 On perusal of the table it is noted that out of a total of 1273
complaints which have been transferred from the State Bar Councils to B
the Bar Council of India in respect of these States, viz., Andhra Pradesh
and Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, and
West Bengal, more than 50 complaints each have been transferred.
Insofar as the States of Maharashtra and Goa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar
Pradesh are concerned, the complaints transferred are over 100 each.
C
Further during the years 2020 and 2021, there have been lesser
number of complaints filed, obviously for the reason that courts were
not functioning in a full fledged manner owing to Covid-19 Pandemic
and consequent lock down imposed from time to time by the Central
Government and the State Governments. But earlier from 2016 to 2019,
the number of complaints transferred from the State Bar Councils to D
Bar Council of India have been steadily increasing from 171, 242, 214
and 490 respectively. These statistics not only reflect on the increasing
number of complaints being filed against the advocates but also the fact
that the State Bar Councils have not discharged their duty in disposing
of these complaints within a period of one year and have simply allowed E
the complaints to be transferred by operation of law from the State Bar
Councils to the Bar Council of India in terms of section 36B of the
Advocates Act. The object and purpose of the said provision must be
understood in its right perspective. It is not simply to pass on the
responsibility from the State Bar Councils to the Bar Council of India
and thereby avoid their responsibility of inquiry into the complaints that F
are filed before them. For immediate reference, section 36B of the Act
is extracted as under :
“36B. Disposal of disciplinary proceedings.—
(1) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose G
of the complaint received by it under section 35 expeditiously and
in each case the proceedings shall be concluded within a period
of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the
date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State
bar Council, as the case may be, failing which such proceedings
shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India which may H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for
inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 36.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where
on the commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973
(60 of 1973), any proceedings in the respect of any disciplinary
B matter against an advocate is pending before the disciplinary
committee of a State Bar Council, that disciplinary committee of
the State Bar Council shall dispose of the same within a period of
six months from the date of such commencement or within a
period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint
or, as the case may be the date of initiation of the proceedings at
C the instance of the State Bar Council, whichever is later, failing
which such other proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar
Council of India for disposal under sub-section (1).]
The aforesaid section states that the disciplinary committee of a
State Bar Council shall dispose of a complaint received by it under section
D 35 expeditiously and the proceedings shall be concluded within a period
of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of
initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as
the case may be, failing which, such proceedings shall stand transferred
to the Bar Council of India. The object of transfer of such proceedings
E to the Bar Council of India is an intimation that the State Bar Council
has failed to dispose of the complaint within a period of one year as
aforesaid. In such circumstance, the Bar Council of India will have to
dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry
under sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act. For immediate reference,
section 36 of the Act is extracted as under:
F
“36. Disciplinary powers of Bar Council of India.—
(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise the Bar Council
of India has reason to believe that any advocate 1[***] whose
name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of professional
G or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its
disciplinary committee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India may, [either of
its own motion or on a report by a State Bar Council or on an
application made to it by any person interested], withdraw for
H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1045
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

inquiry before itself any proceedings for disciplinary action against A
any advocate pending before the disciplinary committee of any
State Bar Council and dispose of the same.
(3) The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, in
disposing of any case under this section, shall observe, so far as
may be, the procedure laid down in section 35, the references to B
the Advocate-General in that section being construed as references
to the Attorney-General of India.
(4) In disposing of any proceedings under this section the
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India may make any
order which the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council C
can make under sub-section (3) of section 35, and where any
proceedings have been withdrawn for inquiry 3[before the
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India] the State Bar
Council concerned shall give effect to any such order.”
Sub-section (3) of section 36 of the Advocates Act states that the D
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India in disposing of any
case under section 36 shall observe as far as may be the procedure laid
down in section 35 the references to the Advocate General in that section
be considered as references to the Attorney General of India.
Under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Advocates Act, there E
is a mandate for the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council giving
notice to the Advocate General and opportunity of being heard before
making an order under the said sub-section.
Having regard to sub-section (3) of section 36 in respect of a
transferred complaint, possibly notice may have to be given to the F
Attorney General of India before disposing of the complaint as per sub-
section (2) of section 36 of the Act. Then in such a case the inquiry
proceedings would not only become complicated but also delay the entire
proceeding.
9. We also do not approve and appreciate the delay on the part of
G
the respective State Bar Council(s)in not disposing the complaint(s) within
a period of one year. As per Section 36B of the Advocates Act, the
Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council have to dispose of the
complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and in each case
the proceeding shall have to be concluded within a period of one year
from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case
may be. Failing to dispose the complaint within a period of one year,
such complaint is required to be transferred to the Bar Council of India
for its disposal as if, it was a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under
sub-section (2) of Section 36. Therefore, disposal of a complaint received
by the State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year
B
from the date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory and the concerned
State Bar Council(s) have to dispose of such complaints as expeditiously
and in each case the proceeding shall have to be concluded within a
period of one year. Only in an exceptional case,by giving valid reasons
to be recorded as to why the complaint could not be disposed of within a
C period of one year, such complaints are required to be transferred to the
Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates
Act. Therefore, the transfer of the complaint(s) received under Section
35 of the Advocates Act from the State Bar Council to the Bar Council
of India is an exception. However, for reasons best known to the
concerned State Bar Councils, the complaints are notbeing disposed
D
received by them under Section 35 within one year. This may be because
the complaints are filed against the fellow Advocates and they would
not like to displease the Advocates against whom the complaints are
made. There could also be some valid reasons for not disposing of the
complaint(s) within a period of one year. But for the same, the reasons
E have to be assigned/recorded as to why the complaint(s) could not be
disposed of within a period of one year. In many cases, the complaints
are deliberately kept pending for more than one year, so that the same
shall be transferred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section
36B of the Advocates Act, by passing the buck so to say.
F 9.1 It is the duty of the Bar Council of India/State Bar council to
improve its functioning on the disciplinary side. This Court in the case of
R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of
Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 had occasion to consider
the object and purpose of enactment of the Advocates Act; role of Bar
Council of India/State Bar Councils as well as the role of lawyers. In
G paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 33 and 44, it is observed as under:-
“15. The Advocates Act has been enacted pursuant to the
recommendations of the All India Bar Committee made in 1953
after taking into account the recommendations of the Law
Commission on the subject of the reforms of judicial administration.
H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1047
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

The main features of the Bill for the enactment of the Act include A
the creation of autonomous Bar Council, one for the whole of
India and one for each State. The Act has been enacted to amend
and consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners and to
provide for the constitution of the Bar Council and an All India
Bar.
B
16. The legal profession cannot be equated with any other
traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is a
noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its
impact on the society. The independence of the Bar and autonomy
of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preserve
the very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remains C
strong. Where the Bar has not performed the duty independently
and has become a sycophant that ultimately results in the
denigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannot
be existence of a strong judicial system without an independent
Bar. D
17. It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in the
struggle for independence of the nation. They have helped in the
framing of the Constitution of India and have helped the courts in
evolving jurisprudence by doing hard labour and research work.
The nobility of the legal system is to be ensured at all costs so that E
the Constitution remains vibrant and to expand its interpretation
so as to meet new challenges.
25. The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery
of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain
the high standard. His duty is to the court, to his own client, to the F
opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counsel
also. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper
for him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class of the
society and a member of the noble profession, the expectation
from him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society.
People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system G
and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants
repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information.
They put their signatures wherever asked by a lawyer. An advocate
is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted
justice is delivered to his cause. H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 26. The high values of the noble profession have to be protected
by all concerned at all costs and in all the circumstances cannot
be forgotten even by the youngsters in the fight of survival in
formative years. The nobility of the legal profession requires an
advocate to remember that he is not over attached to any case as
advocate does not win or lose a case, real recipient of justice is
B
behind the curtain, who is at the receiving end. As a matter of
fact, we do not give to a litigant anything except recognising his
rights. A litigant has a right to be impartially advised by a lawyer.
Advocates are not supposed to be money guzzlers or ambulance
chasers. A lawyer should not expect any favour from the Judge
C and should not involve by any means in influencing the fair decision-
making process. It is his duty to master the facts and the law and
submit the same precisely in the court, his duty is not to waste the
courts’ time.
33. The legislature has reposed faith in the autonomy of the Bar
D while enacting the Advocates Act and it provides for autonomous
Bar Councils at the State and Central level. The ethical standard
of the legal profession and legal education has been assigned to
the Bar Council. It has to maintain the dignity of the legal profession
and independence of the Bar. The disciplinary control has been
assigned to the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Councils of
E various States and the Bar Council of India and an appeal lies to
this Court under Section 38 of the Act.
44. The Bar Council has the power to discipline lawyers and
maintain nobility of profession and that power imposes great
responsibility. The court has the power of contempt and that lethal
F power too accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is a
weapon like Brahmastra to be used sparingly to remain effective.
At the same time, a Judge has to guard the dignity of the court
and take action in contempt and in case of necessity to impose
appropriate exemplary punishment too. A lawyer is supposed to
G be governed by professional ethics, professional etiquette and
professional ethos which are a habitual mode of conduct. He has
to perform himself with elegance, dignity, and decency. He has to
bear himself at all times and observe himself in a manner befitting
as an officer of the court. He is a privileged member of the
community and a gentleman. He has to mainsail with honesty and
H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1049
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

sail with the oar of hard work, then his boat is bound to reach to A
the bank. He has to be honest, courageous, eloquent, industrious,
witty and judgmental.”
In the aforesaid decision, this Court also further observed in
paragraph 85 as under:-
“85. Soul searching is absolutely necessary and the blame game B
and maligning must stop forthwith. Confidence and reverence and
positive thinking is the only way. It is pious hope that the Bar
Council would improve upon the function of its Disciplinary
Committees so as to make the system more accountable, publish
performance audit on the disciplinary side of various Bar Councils. C
The same should be made public. The Bar Council of India under
its supervisory control can implement good ideas as always done
by it and would not lag behind in cleaning process so badly required.
It is to make the profession more noble and it is absolutely necessary
to remove the black sheep from the profession to preserve the
rich ideals of the Bar and on which it struggled for the values of D
freedom. It is basically not for the Court to control the Bar. It is
the statutory duty of the Bar to make it more noble and also to
protect the Judges and the legal system, not to destroy the Bar
itself by inaction and the system which is an important pillar of
democracy.” E
10. Thus, under the Advocates Act, a duty is cast upon the Bar
Council of India/State Bar Councils to safeguard the integrity of the
legal profession. It is duty of the Bar Council of India/respective State
Bar Councils to ensure the nobility of the legal system at all costs. The
powers to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar F
are provided under Sections 35 and 36B of the Advocates Act. The
mandate is to dispose of the complaint received under Section 35 and/or
Section 36 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the
said complaint and/or from the date of such proceeding to the Bar Council
of India. By not disposing of the complaint within the stipulated time
provided under the Act would tantamount to failure on their part to perform G
the duty cast under the Advocates Act.
10.1 Under the Advocates Act, a duty is cast upon the Bar Council
of India/State Bar Councils to safeguard the integrity and nobility of the
legal profession. On the nobility of the legal profession, in the case of, In
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, New Delhi;Kailash Vasdev, Advocate and Kitty
Kumaramangalam (Smt.), Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 619, taking note
of various instances, which can be described as unfortunate, both for
the legal profession and the administration of justice, it is observed as
under:-
B
“20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is
a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable
members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by
acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the
honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by
C their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal
profession is different from other professions in that what the
lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of
justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a
leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a
D responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model
for others both in his professional and in his private and public life.
The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour.”
The Court further stated: (SCC pp. 634-35, para 20)
“20. … If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to
E be vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system
efficient, effective and credible. The casualness and indifference
with which some members practise the profession are certainly
not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige
either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. If
F people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant
ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which
will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. The
present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the
system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked
from outside.”
G
10.2 In Dhanraj Singh Choudhary Vs. Nathulal Vishwakrama,
(2012) 1 SCC 741, it has been observed that an advocate’s attitude
towards dealing with his client has to be scrupulously honest and fair
and the punishment for professional misconduct has twin objectives –
deterrence and correction.
H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1051
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

10.3 Krishna Iyer J. has stated in V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. A
Gopalan, (1979) 1 SCC 308, as under:-
“5. Law’s nobility as a profession lasts only so long as the members
maintain their commitment to integrity and service to the
community.”
10.4 After referring to the aforesaid decisions of this Court as B
well as the scheme of the Advocates Actin Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil
Vs. Bar Council of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 465, it is observed
in paragraphs 39 and 40 as under:-
“39. ……………….. A lawyer is treated as a part of the noble
profession and expected as an elite member of the society, to be C
professionally responsible and constantly remind himself that his
services are rendered to the consumers of justice. As has been
held in Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of
Maharashtra [Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar
Council of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 556] , an advocate stands D
in a loco parentis towards the litigants. He has a paramount duty
to his client and client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere
and honest treatment.
40. Once a complaint is made by a litigant, it has to follow a
definite procedure and is required to be dealt with as per the E
command of the Act to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within
a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint or
the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the
State Bar Council. On many an occasion, it has come to the notice
of this Court that disciplinary authority of the State Bar Council is
not disposing of the complaint within the stipulated period, as a F
consequence of which the proceeding stands transferred to BCI.
The responsibility to deal with the disciplinary proceedings is cast
on the State Bar Council which constitutes its Disciplinary
Committee. Every member of the Disciplinary Committee is aware
that the proceeding has to be concluded within one year. The G
complainant and the delinquent advocate are required to cooperate.
Not to do something what one is required to do, tantamounts to
irresponsibility and the prestige of an institution or a statutory body
inhere in carrying out the responsibility. One may not be always
right in the decision but that does not mean to be shirking away
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A from taking a decision and allow the matter to be transferred by
operation of law to BCI. A statutory authority is obliged to
constantly remind itself that the mandate of the statute is
expediency and the stipulation of time is mandatory. It will not be
erroneous to say that the Disciplinary Committee is expected to
perform its duty within a time-frame and not to create a
B
blameworthy situation. It is better to remember that offering an
explanation to one’s own conscience is like blaming everything on
“accident”. When duties are given by law, duties are required to
be performed.”
10.5 In J.S. Jadhav Vs. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf, (1993)
C 2 SCC 562, this Court has observed as under:-
“Advocacy is not a craft but a calling; a profession wherein
devotion to duty constitutes the hallmark. Sincerity of performance
and earnestness of endeavour are the two wings that will bear
aloft the advocate to the tower of success. Given these virtues
D other qualifications will follow of their own account. This is the
reason why legal profession is regarded to be a noble one.”
10.6 In Kokkanda B. Poondacha Vs. K.D. Ganapathi, (2011)
12 SCC 600, this Court has observed as under:-

E “The relationship between a lawyer and his client is solely founded
on trust and confidence. A lawyer cannot pass on the confidential
information to anyone else. This is so because he is a fiduciary of
his client, who reposes trust and confidence in the lawyer.
Therefore, he has a duty to fulfil all his obligations towards his
client with care and act in good faith. Since the client entrusts the
F whole obligation of handling legal proceedings to an advocate, he
has to act according to the principles of uberrima fides i.e. the
utmost faith, integrity, fairness and loyalty.”
10.7 In O.P. Sharma Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
(2011) 6 SCC 86, this Court has observed as under:-
G
“An advocate should be dignified in his dealings to the court, to
his fellow lawyers and to the litigants. He should have integrity in
abundance and should never do anything that erodes his credibility.
An advocate has a duty to enlighten and encourage the juniors in
the profession. An ideal advocate should believe that the legal
H profession has an element of service also and associates with
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1053
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

legal service activities. Most importantly, he should faithfully abide A
by the standards of professional conduct and etiquette prescribed
by the Bar Council of India in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar
Council of India Rules.”
10.8 In Harishankar Rastogi Vs. Girdhari Sharma, (1978) 2
SCC 165, this Court has observed as under:- B
“(…) the Bar is an extension of the system of justice; an advocate
is an officer of court. He is master of an expertise but more than
that, accountable to the court and governed by a high ethic. The
success of the judicial process often depends on the services of
the legal profession.” C
10.9 In Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar,
(1976) 2 SCC 291, this Court has observed as under:-
“The vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and
professional lifestyle. Be it remembered that the central function
of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. D
If the practice of law is thus a public utility of great implications
and a monopoly is statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the
lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him
worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of
justice – social justice.” E
10.10 On the role of the Bar Council of India, the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the case of Mangu Sihari Vs. Bar Council of State of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 AP 271 has observed in paragraphs 7
and 13 as under:-
“7. In this context it must be noticed that the Advocates Act and F
the rules framed by the Bar Council of India are calculated to
maintain high standard of professional conduct. Towards this end,
it is provided that any allegation of professional misconduct should
be enquired into by senior members of the said profession in whom
professional body has reposed confidence electing them R. 36-B
G
of the Rules made under Advocates Act envisages expeditious
disposal of any such complaint by prescribing a period of one
year for the disposal of the complaint and laying down that if the
enquiry is not so disposed of it would stand transferred to the Bar
Council of India. Neither the Act nor the rules governing the
disciplinary proceedings envisage stay of these proceedings having H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A regard to the pendency of a criminal or civil case before any
court or other authority. The complainant himself cannot withdraw
the proceeding. Even the death of the complainant does not
terminate the disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council. It
is only a decision of the Disciplinary Committee that terminates
the proceeding. Disposal of such a proceeding with utmost
B
expedition is in the interests of the advocate whose professional
integrity is under a cloud as a result of the initiation and pendency
of the disciplinary proceedings.
13. XXXXXXXXXX
C A professional body, such as the Bar-Council, has the exclusive
jurisdiction to enquire into the allegations of misconduct against
the members of the legal profession and it is enjoined to dispose
of enquiry into such allegations expeditiously within a period of
one year. That provision is intended not merely to clear the cloud
cast on the particular advocate at the earliest but also intended to
D keep the noble profession itself clear of such members. Advocates
owe a duty not only to their clients but to the court as well in the
administration of law and justice. It is in the interest of the Advocate
and in particular that the proceedings conclude with the least
possible delay. Merely because some civil or criminal proceeding
E is pending before a court or Authority in respect of some issue
common to that proceeding and the proceeding before the
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council and stay of proceedings
before the Bar Council would result in serious interference with
the discharge of the statutory functions of the professional body
unless allowing such proceeding to go on would result in
F miscarriage of justice. Such a step should in our view, be avoided.”
We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court.
10.11 In Markand C. Gandhi Vs. Rohini M. Dandekar, (2008)
G 10 SCC 792, it was found that a complaint was filed before the State
Bar Council in the year 1984 and transferred to the Bar Council of India,
which remained pending before it for 22 years, this Court observed that
the Chairman of the Bar Council of India would see that, in future,
complaints are disposed of with reasonable dispatch and not in a leisurely
fashion so that people may repose confidence in the Bar Council of
H India, which is a statutory and autonomous body.
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1055
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

We are constrained to observed that despite the above A
observations, still the complaints are not disposed of with reasonable
dispatch and firstly, kept pending by the State Bar Councils for one year
and thereafter by the Bar Council of India.
11. As observed hereinabove, Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned
senior counsel and Chairman of the Bar Council of India has stated that B
necessary guidelines/directions in exercise of the powers under Section
48B shall be issued by the Bar Council of India to all the State Bar
Councils to dispose of the complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act within a period of one year and only in exceptional case
and for the reasons to be recorded by the concerned State Bar Council
and if for valid reasons, the said complaint could not be disposed of C
within a period of one year, then and then only such complaint/proceeding
be transferred to the Bar Council of India as mandated under Section
36B of the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India is directed to issue
appropriate directions as stated by the Chairman of the Bar Council of
India. Even the Bar Council of India is also required to dispose of the D
transferred complaint(s)/transferred proceeding(s) within a period of one
year from the date of receipt of such complaint(s)/proceeding(s).
12. Therefore, we direct the Bar Council of India to finally dispose
of the transferred complaints, the particulars of which are referred to
hereinabove expeditiously but not later than one year from today and for E
which even the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may
hold circuit hearings.
12.1 We also direct the respective State Bar Councils to decide
and dispose of the complaint(s) received by it under Section 35
expeditiously and to conclude the same within a period of one year from F
the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36B of
the Advocates Act.
12.2 Only in exceptional case and for the reasons to be recorded
where it is found that for valid reasons, the proceedings could not be
completed within the period stipulated under Section 36B of the Advocates G
Act, then and then only such proceedings shall stand transferred to the
Bar Council of India and on such transfer the Bar Council of India shall
also dispose of the such transferred proceedings/complaints within a
period of one year from receipt of such transferred proceedings.

H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 13. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions and bearing in mind
the fact that 1273 complaints (minus 27 complaints which are disposed)
are pending before the Bar Council of India, it is just and necessary that
a mechanism be found for disposal of the said complaints in accordance
with the procedure prescribed.
B For an efficient and quick disposal of the complaints by the Bar
Council of India vis-à-vis those complaints which have been transferred
to it as per section 36B of the Act, the Bar Council of India may consider
empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates and/or retired judicial
officers to act as Inquiry Officers where an inquiry would be necessitated.
On such inquiry being concluded the report of the Inquiry Officers could
C be received by the Bar Council of India. On consideration of the said
inquiry report, the Bar Council of India could pass appropriate orders on
the complaint.
The aforesaid suggestion is being made bearing in mind the number
of complaints that are pending before Bar Council of India, that is, the
D transferred complaints which would act as the disciplinary authority on
such transfer as it would be highly impossible for the said complaint to
be disposed of within a reasonable time if the inquiry is also to be
conducted by the Bar Council of India.
Hence the Bar Council of India may issue suitable directions to
E the State Bar Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose
of conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the
respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry to transmit
the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for enabling it to take it
further action in the matter.
F This would also enable the complainants and the concerned
advocates against whom the complaints are made to appear before the
Inquiry Officers wherever such an inquiry is instituted in the State where
the complaint has been filed. This would also remove the difficulties
caused to the parties to travel from various parts of the country to Delhi
G for appearing before the inquiry, if any, to be conducted on the complaints
filed by the complainants.
Further and as directed hereinabove, the Bar Council of India to
also issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to conclude the
proceedings from the complaints filed against the advocates within a
period of one year since the intention of the Parliament appears to be to
H
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1057
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

decide on the said complaint within the said period which is a reasonable A
period. The object and purpose of section 36B of the Act is not to
encourage delay in the disposal of the complaint so as to enable the
complaints to be transferred to the Bar Council of India by operation of
law and thereby increase the burden on the All India body and at the
same time create a leeway for the State Bar Council to not act on the
B
complaints and to simply wait for the passage of time so that by operation
of law the said complaint would stand transferred to the Bar Council of
India.
In fact, section 36B of the Act mandates that there should be no
tardiness by the State Bar Council in completion of the proceedings on
the complaints received by them within a period of one year as stated in C
the said provision. When the number of complaints transferred from the
State Bar Councils to Bar Council of India is noted from the aforesaid
statistics, it implies that the States Bar Council have not been discharging
their duties by not disposing the complaints within a period of one year
as provided under section 36B of the Act. D
Further in order to enable the State Bar Council to dispose of the
complaints within a period of one year as provided under section 36B of
the Act, it is incumbent for the respective disciplinary committees of the
State Bar Councils meet on a regular basis.
The State Bar Council could also enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers E
who could be entrusted with the conduct of the inquiry as and when the
same is necessitated on a complaint.
The disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council on
consideration of the said inquiry report may pass orders in accordance
with the provision of section 35 of the Act. F
14. We are constrained to issue the aforesaid directions and
suggestions having regard to the observations of this Court which are
extracted as under:-
(i) “The Bar Councils are enjoined with the duty to act as
G
sentinels of professional conduct and must ensure that the
dignity and purity of the profession are in no way
undermined. Its job is to uphold the standards of professional
conduct and etiquette. Thus every State Bar Council and
the Bar Council of India has a public duty to perform, namely,
to ensure that the monopoly of practice granted under the H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A Act is not misused or abused by a person who is enrolled
as an advocate. The Bar Councils have been created at
the State level as well as the Central level not only to protect
the rights, interests and privileges of its members but also
to protect the litigating public by ensuring that high and noble
traditions are maintained so that the purity and dignity of
B
the profession are not jeopardized.”
[Indian council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council
of India, (1995) 1 SCC 732]
(ii) “The interest of the Bar Council is to uphold standards of
C professional conduct and etiquette in the profession, which
is founded upon integrity and mutual trust. The Bar Council
acts as the custodian of the high traditions of the noble
profession.”
[Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar,
D (1975) 2 SCC 702]
(iii) “Every Bar Council is a body corporate. The functions of
the State Bar Council are inter alia to admit persons as
advocated, on its roll; to prepare and maintain such roll; to
entertain and determine cases of misconduct against
E advocates on its roll; to safeguard the rights, privileges and
interest of advocates on its roll. The functions of the Bar
Council of India are to lay down standards of professional
conduct and etiquette for advocates, to lay down the
procedure to be followed by the Disciplinary Committee of
the Bar Council of India and the Disciplinary Committees
F of the State Bar Councils, to safeguard the rights, privileges
and interests of advocates. A Bar Council is empowered
under the Act to constitute one or more Disciplinary
Committees.”
[Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate
G General of Maharashtra, (1970) 2 SCC 484]
(iv) “The Bar Council has a very important part to play, first, in
the reception of complaints, second, in forming reasonable
belief of guilt of professional or other misconduct and finally
in making reference of the case to its Disciplinary
H Committee.”
K. ANJINAPPA v. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR. 1059
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

[Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, (1975) A
2SCC 702]
15. Now so far as the present case is concerned, it is reported
that subsequently even the complaint made by the appellant – original
complainant No.1 has been disposed of by the State Bar Council by
order dated 11.03.2017 against which a revision application is pending B
before the Bar Council of India. In that view of the matter, no further
order is required on the complaint made by the appellant.
16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal stands disposed of with the above directions to the Bar
Council of India and the respective State Bar Council(s). C

Divya Pandey Appeal disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H