In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court stayed the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) order suspending a senior woman lawyer’s bar license for two years over allegations of misconduct. The Court observed severe violations of procedural fairness and natural justice in the proceedings conducted by the BCI.
A Bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna issued the stay while hearing the plea of the petitioner, a veteran advocate with 24 years of practice. The suspension stemmed from a 2016 incident where the lawyer allegedly threw briefs of other advocates on the floor and used bar room facilities of the Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI) without being a member.
The Bench was critical of the procedural lapses, particularly the BCI’s last-minute introduction of affidavits, which left the petitioner no time to respond. Highlighting the unfair process, the Court stated:
“Affidavits of the complaint dated 13 April 2024 were served on the petitioner on the day of the hearing, i.e., 14 April 2024, without any opportunity being granted to the petitioner to deal with such new material, and astonishingly on the same day the impugned order is stated to have been passed.”
The incident, which occurred in 2016 in Room No. 18 of the Bombay High Court, involved a dispute over space in the AAWI bar room. Although the complainants recorded the event, no immediate action was taken. Over a year and a half later, in 2017, a complaint was filed with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) and subsequently transferred to the BCI without informing the petitioner.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the complaint was retaliatory, as it came after the petitioner had filed sexual harassment complaints against BCMG members. The counsel also pointed out that the BCI’s April 2024 order was not communicated to the petitioner until September 2024, further complicating the matter.
The Court expressed grave concerns about the procedural flaws and delays, stating:
“In our opinion, not only substantive fairness but procedural fairness was required to be adhered to by the respondents in conducting the impugned proceedings against the petitioner. But such principles were thrown to the wind by the BCI.”
Additionally, the Bench criticized the delay in issuing and processing the order, observing:
“Almost seven years were taken to pass orders on the said complaint, and that too, the hearing being wrapped up on 14 April 2024, in the manner as noted by us.”
The Court further remarked on the “disturbing” four-month delay in communicating the order, stating:
“As to how it could be forwarded to the petitioner after almost four months, which was received by the petitioner on 2 September 2024, itself raises serious doubts on the legal propriety of the impugned order. This certainly is neither acceptable nor logical.”
The Bench noted that the suspension order would have significant civil consequences on the petitioner, impacting her livelihood and professional reputation. By staying the BCI order, the Court upheld the fundamental principles of fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings.
Case: An Advocate vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa – Available on LAWFYI.IO
