Seeking repeated adjournments professional misconduct: SC

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, MAY. 3. The seeking of repeated adjournments on the part of an advocate for postponing the examination of witnesses present in court - even without making other arrangements for examining them - amounts to professional `misconduct', a three- member Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled.

``When the Bar Council in its wider scope of supervision over the conduct of advocates in their professional duties comes across any instance of such misconduct it is the duty of the Bar Council concerned to refer the matter to its Disciplinary Committee,'' the Bench said.

``If the complaint (in a given case) is genuine and if the same is not lodged with the sole purpose of harassing an advocate or if it is not actuated by mala fides, the Bar Council has a statutory duty to forward the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee,'' the Bench noted.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas on the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order of the Maharashtra State Bar Council (MSBC) as well as that of the Bar Council of India (BCI) which, in effect, dismissed the appellant's complaint of professional misconduct against two advocates (respondents).

The Bench which included Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan, held that the appellant's complaint against the two advocates ``would stand referred to the disciplinary committee of the MSBC'' under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

As the `misconduct' alleged against the respondents was of the year 1993-94, the Bench ordered that the complaint of the appellant would stand referred to the BCI under section 36 of the 1961 Act.

The Bench also directed the ``Disciplinary Committee'' of the BCI to adopt such steps ``as are necessary for the disposal of the complaint in accordance with law and in the light of the observations'' (in this judgment).

``Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the court procedures'' and ``tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct'', the Bench said adding that ``the central function of the legal profession is to help promotion of administration of justice.''

The appellant, an agricultural scientist, filed a complaint before the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Pune against some accused of theft of electricity.

The agony of the appellant started when the magistrate posted the case for `cross-examination' of the appellant on July 30, 1993.

On the request of the advocate of the accused, the case was first adjourned to August 23, 1993. Again, on the repeated requests of the said advocate the case was adjourned to September 13, October 16, November 20 and December 4, despite the presence of the appellant and all his witnesses in the court on specified days.

When the case was again adjourned on December 4, the appellant lodged a complaint against the two advocates of the accused (respondents) before the MSBC.

As, first the MSBC and later, the BCI virtually rejected the appellant's complaint against the advocates, he filed the present appeal before the apex court.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Railway Board Chairman seeks Tehelka's apology
Next     : Stop 'campaign of disinformation', Govt. told