Advocates Act | BCI Cannot Entertain Appeal Against Order Of State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee When Probe Is Pending: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that Bar Council Of India (BCI) cannot entertain appeal from interim order of the State Bar Council's disciplinary committee when the probe is pending and no punishment is imposed. 

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "when the Special Committee concerned, has not yet completed its probe, nor has made any final recommendations to the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, nor when the latter has proceeded to impose any punishment upon co-respondent No 4. Resultantly, no jurisdiction became foisted upon the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, either to entertain the appeal, or to pass any order thereon. As such, therebys, the impugned order is made on an ill-constituted appeal, besides, the same is non-est."

An Advocate alleged that the President of Karnal's District Bar that he is committing defalcation of funds of the bar Association and alloting the chambers to the ineligible Advocate. Hence on the ground of the complaint, a special committee was constituted to look into this matter.

Special committee passed an order against Sandeep Chaudhary, the President that he should be kept away from intervening into the matter of construction of chamber and be debarred from contesting the election for any post at DBA, Karnal for the next three years.

The order was challenged before the disciplinary authority of bar council of India at which ultimately permitted him to contest the election for the post of president.

The senior council representing the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction by the disciplinary committee of the bar Council of India is a Corum non-judice.

Perusing Section 37 of the Advocate's Act, the Court noted that any person aggrieved by an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, is provided with a liberty to within 60 days from the date of communication of the passing of the said order, thus make an appeal there against before the the Bar Council of India, whereupon alone, the said appeal thus becomes amenable to become adjudicated by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.

The bench noted further that, "the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, has not proceeded to undertake the further exercise of agreeing or disagreeing with the recommendation(s) made to it, by the Special Committee concerned, nor reiteratedly when any punishment was imposed upon Co-respondent No. 4, by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, therebys, when there was non rendition of any order in terms of sub-Section (2) of the said Act, thus by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, thereupon, there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction, on the said appeal, by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India."

It opined that when the Special Committee has not completed its probe into the allegations raised by the complainant, nor when post thereto, any final report with any final recommendations thereins, becomes referred to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

The Court held that "In sequel, the said passed interim order when ultimately has not resulted, qua in terms of Section 37 of the Act."

In the light of the above, the plea was allowed.

Title: JAGMAL SINGH JATAIN v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 111

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate,

Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, Ms. Anu Chaudhary, Advocate and Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Click here to read/download the order