Supreme Court Quashes Bar Council References Where Referral Orders Were Cryptic; Advocates Vindicated With Costs

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals arising from interim orders of the Bombay High Court in writ petitions challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG). The appeals concerned interlocutory orders that referred complaints against two advocates — Shri Rajiv Narula and Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri — to the BCMG’s Disciplinary Committee and the High Court’s subsequent stays and quashes of those references.

The Court allowed relief to the advocate-respondents, quashed the disciplinary proceedings and imposed costs on the complainants and the Bar Council. The Court held that a reference under Section 35 of the Advocates Act required a reasoned prima facie satisfaction and that cryptic or laconic orders of reference suffered from non-application of mind. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the present case, the order passed supra by the Judge-Advocate, referring the complaint to the DC, is absolutely cryptic and laconic for it does not record any satisfaction to the effect that the respondent-advocate had committed misconduct as provided under Section 35 of the 1961 Act. The order dated 6th July, 2023, does not even make a bald reference to the gist of allegations as set out in the complaint and hence, the same suffers from total non-application of mind. Reference of a complaint of the DC would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession. Hence a cryptic order referring the complaint to the DC without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations contained in the complaint would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order.” The Court further noted that “Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of ‘professional misconduct’.”

Background The primary appeal arose from a complaint by Khimji Devji Parmar against advocate Rajiv Narula concerning consent terms recorded in a suit over land in Malad. The complainant alleged that Consent Terms had been procured without notice to persons claiming interest (including partners of M/s Volga Enterprises) and that signatures and documents might be forged or the plaintiff impersonated. The Judge-Advocate of the BCMG recorded a brief order dated 6 July 2023 taking cognizance and referring Complaint No.27 of 2023 to the Disciplinary Committee. The Bombay High Court stayed that reference by an interim order; the Bar Council sought special leave.

The connected matters concerned a complaint by Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad against advocate Geeta Shastri alleging that she identified the deponent of an affidavit filed with a chamber summons and thereby became responsible for its contents, which were later said to be false. The High Court quashed the reference and related proceedings; the Bar Council again approached this Court.

On consideration of the pleadings and records, the Supreme Court found that in both matters the Bar Council or its Judge-Advocate had acted without recording the requisite reasons and, in one case, had arraigned an advocate who had not represented the complainant or his predecessors. The Court applied established precedent that a State Bar Council must “apply its mind” and record reasons before referring a complaint under Section 35, and held that a mere identification of a plaintiff or of an affidavit deponent did not, without more, constitute professional misconduct. The Court observed that the High Court’s intervention in the writ petitions was justified and invoked Article 136 to quash the disciplinary proceedings in favour of the advocates.

Resulting orders: Complaint No.27 of 2023 and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed and set aside; the pending writ petition before the Bombay High Court was closed. In the connected matters the High Court’s quashing of the reference and related proceedings was upheld. The Court imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the BCMG in the Rajiv Narula matter and costs of Rs.50,000 each on Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad and the BCMG in the Geeta Shastri matter; the costs were directed to be deposited in the Bombay High Court registry within four weeks and paid to the respective respondent-advocates. All pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1147 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27606 of 2023 and connected SLPs) Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel for Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (names not recorded in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Shri Rajiv Narula and for Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri (names not recorded in judgment)