K. Anjinappa vs K.C. Krishna Reddy and Anr.

HELD: 1.1 An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein it is stated that in last five years, 1,273 complaints filed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 have been transferred to the Bar Council of India as the concerned State Bar Council(s) did not dispose of the complaint(s) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within one year. During the years 2020 and 2021, there have been lesser number of complaints filed. But earlier from 2016 to 2019, the number of complaints transferred from the State Bar Councils to Bar Council of India have been steadily increasing from 171, 242, 214 and 490 respectively. These statistics not only reflect on the increasing number of complaints being filed against the advocates but also the fact that the State Bar Councils have not discharged their duty in disposing of these complaints within a period of one year and have simply allowed the complaints to be transferred by operation of law from the State Bar Councils to the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 36B of the Advocates Act. The object and purpose of the said provision must be understood in its right perspective. It is not simply to pass on the responsibility from the State Bar Councils to the Bar Council of India and thereby avoid their responsibility of inquiry into the complaints that are filed before them. The aforesaid section states that the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of a complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and the proceedings shall be concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, failing which, such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India. The object of transfer of such proceedings to the Bar Council of India is an intimation that the State Bar Council has failed to dispose of the complaint within a period of one year as aforesaid. In such circumstance, the Bar Council of India will have to dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section

36 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Advocates Act states that the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India in disposing of any case under Section 36 shall observe as far as may be the procedure laid down in Section 35 the references to the Advocate General in that section be considered as references to the Attorney General of India. Under sub-section (3) of Section

35 of the Advocates Act, there is a mandate for the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council giving notice to the Advocate General and opportunity of being heard before making an order under the said sub-section. Having regard to sub-section (3) of Section 36 in respect of a transferred complaint, possibly notice may have to be given to the Attorney General of India before disposing of the complaint as per sub- section (2) of Section 36 of the Act. Then in such a case the inquiry proceedings would not only become complicated but also delay the entire proceeding. [Paras 5, 8.1][1041-C-D; 1043-C-F; 1044-D-F; 1055-D-G]

1.2 The delay on the part of the respective State Bar Council(s) in not disposing the complaint(s) within a period of one year is not approved and appreciated. Disposal of a complaint received by the State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory and the concerned State Bar Council(s) have to dispose of such complaints as expeditiously and in each case the proceeding shall have to be concluded within a period of one year. Only in an exceptional case, by giving valid reasons to be recorded as to why the complaint could not be disposed of within a period of one year, such complaints are required to be transferred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act. Therefore, the transfer of the complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act from the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India is an exception. However, for reasons best known to the concerned State Bar Councils, the complaints are not being disposed received by them under Section 35 within one year. This may be because the complaints are filed against the fellow Advocates and they would not like to displease the Advocates against whom the complaints are made. There could also be some valid reasons for not disposing of the complaint(s) within a period of one year. But for the same, the reasons have to be assigned/recorded as to why the complaint(s) could not be disposed of within a period of one year. In many cases, the complaints are deliberately kept pending for more than one year, so that the same shall be transferred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, by passing the buck. [Para 9][1045-G-H; 1046-C-F]

1.3 It is the duty of the Bar Council of India/State Bar council to improve its functioning on the disciplinary side. Thus, under the Advocates Act, a duty is cast upon the Bar Council of India/State Bar Councils to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession. It is duty of the Bar Council of India/respective State Bar Councils to ensure the nobility of the legal system at all costs. The powers to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar are provided under Section 35 and 36B of the Advocates Act. The mandate is to dispose of the complaint received under Section 35 and/or Section 36 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the said complaint and/or from the date of such proceeding to the Bar Council of India. By not disposing of the complaint within the stipulated time provided under the Act would tantamount to failure on their part to perform the duty cast under the Advocates Act. [Paras 9.1, 10][1046-F; 1049-E-G]

R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 : [2019] 1 SCR 589; In re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi; Kailash Vasdev, Advocate and Kitty Kumaramangalam (Smt.), Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 619: [1995] 3 SCR 450;

Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakrama, (2012) 1 SCC 741 : [2011] 16 SCR 240; V.C.

Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, (1979) 1 SCC 308 : [1979]

1 SCR 1054; Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil v. Bar Council of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 465 : [2017] 5 SCR 984; J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf, (1993) 2 SCC 562 : [1993] 2 SCR 1006; Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi, (2011) 12 SCC 600 : [2011] 4 SCR 417; O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (2011) 6 SCC 86 : [2011] 6 SCR 301; Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma, (1978) 2 SCC

165 : [1978] 3 SCR 493 – relied on.

1.4 The Bar Council of India is directed to issue appropriate directions as stated by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India. Even the Bar Council of India is also required to dispose of the transferred complaint(s)/transferred proceeding(s) within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such complaint(s)/proceeding(s). Therefore, the Bar Council of India is directed to finally dispose of the transferred complaints expeditiously but not later than one year from today and for which even the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may hold circuit hearings. The respective State Bar Councils are also directed to decide and dispose of the complaint(s) received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act. For an efficient and quick disposal of the complaints by the Bar Council of India vis-à-vis those complaints which have been transferred to it as per Section 36B of the Act, the Bar Council of India may consider empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates and/or retired judicial officers to act as Inquiry Officers where an inquiry would be necessitated. On such inquiry being concluded the report of the Inquiry Officers could be received by the Bar Council of India. On consideration of the said inquiry report, the Bar Council of India could pass appropriate orders on the complaint. The Bar Council of India may issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose of conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry to transmit the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for enabling it to take it further action in the matter. Now so far as the present case is concerned, it is reported that subsequently even the complaint made by the appellant-original complainant No.1 has been disposed of by the State Bar Council against which a revision application is pending before the Bar Council of India. Thus, no further order is required on the complaint made by the appellant. [Paras 11, 12, 12.1, 13 and 15][1055-D-F; 1056-B-C, E-F; 1059-B]

Markand C. Gandhi Vs. Rohini M. Dandekar, (2008)

10 SCC 792; Indian Council Of Legal Aid & Advice vs. Bar Council Of India (1995) 1 SCC 732 : [1995]

1 SCR 304; Adi Pherozshah Gandhi vs. H.M. Seervai Advocate General Of Maharashtra Bombay (1970) 2 SCC 484 : [1971] 1 SCR 863; Bar Council of

Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291 : [1976] 2 SCR 48; Mangu Sihari Vs. Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 AP 271 – relied on.