Supreme Court Sets Aside Bar Council Order Holding Advocate Guilty Over Delayed Deposit of Court Costs

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 filed by an advocate who challenged the final judgment dated 4 April 2025 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI). The appeal arose from a disciplinary finding that the advocate had committed professional misconduct by failing to ensure timely deposit of court-ordered costs and by being absent from court hearings, which the Committee held had resulted in the dismissal of a quashing petition.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Disciplinary Committee dated 4 April 2025 that had found the appellant guilty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh with a contingent suspension of the licence to practice. The bench held that the Disciplinary Committee had failed to consider material facts and had reached a legally unsustainable conclusion without proper evidence or adherence to basic principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the Committee had “completely glossed over the aforesaid material” and had not adverted to the complainant’s sworn withdrawal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly that the genesis of the dispute was a mere misunderstanding regarding the deposit of costs which stood resolved during the pendency of the proceedings, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Once the respondent-complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the appellant-advocate and categorically sought to withdraw the complaint, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist. In these circumstances, the order holding appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct is considered wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law.”

Background

The dispute originated from FIR No. 150/2018 (Samrala, Ludhiana) in which the respondent stood accused of several offences. After a compromise on 28 July 2018, the respondent engaged the appellant-advocate to move a quashing petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court quashed the FIR on 28 September 2018 subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000 within two weeks; the costs were not produced in time and the High Court recalled its order and dismissed the petition for want of prosecution on 16 November 2018. The advocate then applied for recall; on 14 January 2020 the High Court recalled the dismissal and restored the quashing petition subject to enhanced costs of Rs. 50,000.

Aggrieved by the alleged negligence in payment of costs, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before the State Bar Council. During the disciplinary proceedings, the parties amicably resolved the misunderstanding, the High Court on 2 March 2021 waived the enhanced costs and, after compliance, on 12 December 2022 quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The respondent filed a sworn affidavit dated 15 December 2022 before the State Bar Council stating that the complaint had arisen from frustration and misunderstanding, that he was satisfied with the advocate’s services, and that he wished to withdraw the complaint.

The State Bar Council proceedings did not conclude within the statutory year and the matter stood transferred to the BCI Disciplinary Committee, which proceeded to adjudicate and found professional misconduct without examining the complainant on oath and without according the advocate the indefeasible right of cross-examination. The Supreme Court found that the Committee had ignored the respondent’s affidavit and that no evidence was led to substantiate the allegations. Consequently, the Court held that the substratum of the complaint had ceased to exist and set aside the impugned judgment. The appeal was allowed and there was no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2026 Case Title: Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate (appearing for respondent-complainant as noted in the judgment)