Selected opinions of the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee

Professional Ethics · Unit IV · Topic 16 of 18 · 6 min read

How to read and use the fifty prescribed BCI opinions: what a DC Appeal and a BCI Transferred Case are, the procedure the committee follows, the recurring kinds of misconduct and punishment, how the Supreme Court has treated BCI orders, and the compromise-and-retained-money problem solved.

← All Professional Ethics topics Past papers

On this page

1. Reading the list
2. The procedure the committee follows
3. Recurring kinds of misconduct in the opinions
4. Bar Council of India orders tested in the Supreme Court
5. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The examinable core. December 2018 asked: “What is professional misconduct? Discuss in the light of two selected opinions of the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of India.” The syllabus lists fifty opinions reported in the Indian Bar Review (IBR) between 1987 and 1998. You are not expected to know fifty. Know what the two kinds of entry mean, the procedure, the recurring patterns, and two or three opinions in detail from your college compilation. This note gives the framework and the Supreme Court decisions in which Bar Council of India disciplinary orders were tested.

1. Reading the list

“DC Appeal No. 16/93” is an appeal under section 37 to the Bar Council of India’s disciplinary committee against an order of a State Bar Council’s disciplinary committee under section 35. The committee may confirm, set aside or vary the order.
“BCI Tr. Case No. 40/91” is a transferred case: a complaint that the State Bar Council failed to decide within one year and that therefore stood transferred to the Bar Council of India under section 36B(1), or that the Bar Council of India withdrew to itself under section 36(2). Here the Bar Council of India acts as the original tribunal and its order is appealable to the Supreme Court under section 38.
“1998 (Vol. 1) IBR 135” is the report: year, volume and page of the Indian Bar Review, the journal published under the Bar Council of India.

The number of transferred cases on the list tells its own story: State Bar Councils often did not finish within the year that section 36B allows.

2. The procedure the committee follows

Notice to the advocate and to the Attorney-General (section 36(3)) or, in an appeal, to the parties.
Hearing, with the powers of a civil court to summon witnesses and documents (section 42).
The rules of natural justice and the standard of proof of a quasi-criminal charge: the complaint must be specific and proved (An Advocate v. B.B. Haradara, 1988 INSC 307, AIR 1989 SC 245).
Orders under section 35(3): dismissal, reprimand, suspension or removal, with costs under section 43.
Review within sixty days under section 44, and appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days under section 38.

3. Recurring kinds of misconduct in the opinions

Client’s money: retaining amounts received in execution, from compromise or from court deposits; failing to account (Rules 25 to 30).
Neglect and deception: taking fees and documents but not filing the case, or telling the client it is pending.
Acting without or against instructions: withdrawing or compromising a case without the client’s authority (Rule 19).
Conflict of interest: appearing for the opposite side in the same matter (Rule 33).
Withholding files for fees.
Improper conduct towards courts: using a judge’s name to extract money, abusive language.
Soliciting and touting (Rule 36).
Other misconduct: forgery, false affidavits, conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.

The committee frequently dismissed complaints that were in substance fee disputes or attempts by a losing litigant to blame his advocate, and it reserved removal for dishonesty.

4. Bar Council of India orders tested in the Supreme Court

These are useful as illustrations of the committee’s work because the Supreme Court summarised what the committee had done.

Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, 2001 INSC 318, (2001) 6 SCC 1. An advocate wrote to his client demanding Rs. 10,000 to bribe the presiding judge. The State Bar Council suspended him for two years; the Bar Council of India’s committee, on appeal, ordered removal of his name; on review it reduced this to a reprimand. The Supreme Court restored removal and held that review under section 44 cannot be used to reconsider the merits.
Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. Kurupati Satyanarayana, 2002 INSC 474. The State Bar Council struck off an advocate who had misappropriated money received for his client; the Bar Council of India reversed. The Supreme Court held that the State Bar Council, as prosecutor, is a person aggrieved, and restored the finding: misappropriation of a client’s money is grave misconduct.
R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, 2000 INSC 409, (2000) 7 SCC 264. The Bar Council’s committee debarred an advocate for eighteen months and fined him for withholding a client’s files. The Supreme Court agreed there is no lien on case files but, given his bona fide belief, reduced the punishment.
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, 1975 INSC 235, AIR 1976 SC 242. The Bar Council of India’s committee acquitted touting advocates on a narrow reading of Rule 36; the Supreme Court corrected it.
V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, 1978 INSC 194, AIR 1979 SC 201. The Bar Council of India upheld a finding of deception of clients and reduced the suspension; the Supreme Court moulded the punishment on reformative lines.

5. Problem

A criminal appeal was compromised without the knowledge of the client. The compromise amount was Rs. 1,500. The advocate kept the amount without paying it to the client. Discuss.

Law. Rule 19: an advocate shall act only on the instructions of his client or his authorised agent. Rule 24: no abuse of the client’s confidence. Rule 27: any amount received on behalf of the client must be intimated to him as early as possible. Rules 25 and 26: accounts. Section 35: misconduct. Composition of an offence is governed by section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (section 320 of the CrPC), and must be by the person entitled to compound. Criminal breach of trust by an agent or attorney is punishable under section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (section 409 IPC).

Application. Two separate wrongs are present. First, compromising the appeal without the client’s knowledge: a compromise surrenders the client’s rights and needs his express authority; doing it behind his back breaches Rule 19, and in a criminal case the compounding itself is irregular if not made by the person entitled. Second, keeping the Rs. 1,500: the money belonged to the client and the advocate held it as a trustee. Failing to inform the client and to pay it over is misappropriation, the gravest form of misconduct (Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju, 2002; Kurupati Satyanarayana, 2002). The small amount does not reduce the gravity; dishonesty is the issue.

Conclusion. The advocate is guilty of professional misconduct and is liable to suspension or removal under section 35(3). The client may also sue to recover the money, prosecute for criminal breach of trust under section 316(5) of the BNS, and challenge the unauthorised compromise before the appellate court.

How this is examined

For the December 2018 question: define misconduct, explain the section 36B and section 37 routes by which matters reach the Bar Council of India, then discuss two opinions from your compilation (facts, finding, punishment), and support them with Shambhu Ram Yadav and Kurupati Satyanarayana. The compromise problem was set in December 2017.

Now try the real questions: Professional Ethics past question papers.