SC Protects Lawyers From Unfair Complaints , No Misconduct If Client Withdraws

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a significant restatement of the limits of disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates and the procedural safeguards that must govern findings of professional misconduct.

The judgment serves as a cautionary note to disciplinary authorities against mechanically sustaining complaints once their factual foundation has collapsed, and against diluting basic principles of natural justice in the name of professional regulation .

What's The Matter?

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against an advocate for alleged negligence in failing to ensure the timely deposit of costs imposed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while quashing an FIR on the basis of compromise.

The initial quashing order was recalled due to non-compliance with the cost condition, leading to a temporary revival of criminal proceedings against the complainant.

Although the matter was later fully resolved with the High Court restoring the quashing order, waiving enhanced costs, and finally quashing the FIR the disciplinary machinery continued to move forward.

Crucially, during the pendency of proceedings before the State Bar Council, the complainant himself filed a sworn affidavit acknowledging that the complaint had been filed due to a misunderstanding and frustration over the imposition of enhanced costs, expressly stating that he was satisfied with the advocate’s professional services and wished to withdraw the complaint.

Despite this, and despite the absence of any oral evidence or cross-examination, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India proceeded to hold the advocate guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a monetary penalty coupled with the threat of suspension.

What Court Said?

The Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. It held that once the complainant unequivocally withdrew the allegations and affirmed satisfaction with the advocate’s conduct, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist.

In ignoring the affidavit and proceeding as though the complaint survived independently of the complainant’s stand, the Disciplinary Committee failed to engage with material evidence that went to the root of the matter .

Equally significant is the Court’s emphasis on procedural fairness.

The judgment underscores that findings of professional misconduct cannot rest on bald allegations contained in a complaint.

The complainant was neither examined on oath nor subjected to cross-examination, and no independent evidence was led to substantiate the charge of negligence.

Holding an advocate guilty in such circumstances, the Court observed, renders the finding legally unsustainable and violative of elementary principles of natural justice.

The ruling draws an important distinction between genuine professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action and disputes arising from misunderstandings or procedural lapses that are later rectified without prejudice to the client.