Karnataka High Court Quashes BCI's Resolution Suspending Senior Advocate S Basavaraj Upon Withdrawal Of Complaint

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed a resolution passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI), placing Senior Advocate S Basavaraj under interim suspension. The resolution was earlier stayed by the High court by way of an interim order.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Basavaraj and said, “It needs to be noticed that BCI has passed the impugned resolution on the revision petition and the R2 (Complainant-Surya Mukundraj) today wants to withdraw the revision petition filed before the BCI and before this court as well. Therefore, the foundation on which the BCI has passed the resolution has itself today tumbled down.”

It added, “In that light the BCI cannot now contend that it wants to continue the proceedings notwithstanding there being nothing before it as the revision petitioner himself has withdrawn the revision petition and is before this court. In that light nothing further survives for BCI to further consider.”

Court rejected the contention of the BCI that it has suo-motu powers to continue with the revision petition.

The court said, “Strangely enough the counsel for R1 is wanting to pursue the matter without there being anything pending before it. In the light of there being nothing before the BCI acceding to the submission of the first respondent BCI would be directing something contrary to law. In that light there being nothing before the BCI today with the R2 himself withdrawing the revision petition. The petition deserves to succeed. Petition is allowed.”

The petitioner had approached the court, calling into question the entire proceedings in the revisions petition of 13/2024 and consequently sought quashment of the resolution dated 3-09-2024.

Mukunduraj had registered a complaint before the Karnataka State Bar Council on 30-11-2022. It was touching upon the functioning of Daksha Legal, a knowledge-sharing platform run by the petitioner's son. Following the reply filed by the petitioner, the KSBC had rejected the complaint, invoking section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961.

A year later, the complainant had preferred a revision petitioner before BCI invoking Section 48A of the Act. The BCI notwithstanding the aforesaid delay, which was unexplained, passed a resolution directing that the license of the petitioner would be placed under interim suspension for six months.

After the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner moved the High Court challenging the same, and by way of interim order dated September 10, 2024, the court stayed its operation.

During the sustenance of the petition, the complainant R2, who had registered the complaint before KSBC and also preferred revision before BCI, withdrew the revision petition. He filed a memo on March 20, 2025, before the BCI, intending to withdraw the revision petition.

The BCI, though contended that the memo has not reached it; therefore, they should be permitted to continue the proceedings.

The court noted that the counsel appearing for R2 has filed the memo of withdrawal before this court as well.

"The withdrawal memo filed before BCI is appended and the signature of the second respondent is found on the memo...The memo is taken note of and the proceedings before BCI initiated by R2 has stood withdrawn,” the court said.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik for Petitioner.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135

Case Title: S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR

Case No: WP 24962/2024