Disciplinary committee means a person or a group of people who are empowered to hear cases and proceedings involving professional misconduct of an advocate upon a complaint, revision or suo motu. The disciplinary committee is mainly formed to ensure that the members of the bar council of India or the bar council of any state are maintaining professional ethics and standards

S.9 of the Advocates Act empowers the state Bar Councils to constitute one or more Disciplinary Committees. Each Disciplinary Committee shall consists of 3 members. Two shall be selected from the members of the Bar Council and one shall be selected from the Advocates who are having more than 10 years of standing in profession. Among the three members the senior most in the profession shall act as the chairman of the committee.

Powers : S.42 of the Advocates Act deals with the power of Disciplinary committee. It provides that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council shall have the same powers same like the civil court under the C.P.C. in respect of the following matters.

1. Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath.

2. Requiring discovery and production of any documents.

3. Receiving evidence on affidavit.

4. Requiring any public record or copies of any record from any court or office.

5. Issuing commissions for the examinations of witness or documents.

The disciplinary committee has no right to require the attendance of the following persons.

(i) Any presiding officer of the court.

(ii) Any officer of the revenue court.

A presiding officer of a court shall be summoned to attend the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee with permission of the High Court and an officer of the revenue court shall be summoned with the permission of the State Govt.

All the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of a Bar Council shall be deemed to a judicial proceedings within the meaning of S.193 & 228 of I.P.C and every such disciplinary Committee shall be deemed to be a civil court.

Enquiry Procedure: The main function of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council is to enquire the complaints of professional misconduct against the Advocates award suitable

punishments. In the enquiry the following procedures prescribe under

S.35 of the Advocates Act should be followed.

1. On perusal of the complaint, if the Bar council is satisfied that it is a fit case for enquiry then the complaint shall be referred for enquiry to the Disciplinary Committee.

2. The Disciplinary Committee shall fix a date for enquiry and shall send notice to the concerned Advocate and the Advocate General of the State.

3. The Advocate charged with the professional misconduct shall appear in person or through the Lawyer. Similarly, the Advocate general also appear in person or through a lawyer.

4. The Disciplinary Committee should complete the enquiry proceedings within one year from the date of receipt of the complaint. Due to any reason, if the enquiry was not completed within one year then the complaint should be referred to the Bar Council of India for its disposal.

5. During the pendency of the enquiry if the term of the Disciplinary Committee comes to an end then the successor committee shall continue the enquiry.

6. After the enquiry due to the lack of majority opinion or otherwise if the Disciplinary Committee was unable to take a final decision then they shall seek the opinion of the chairman of the bar council and shall pass the final order following his opinion.

Case Laws:

1. Allahabad Bank Vs. Girish Prasad Verma BCI Tr. Case No. 49/1993 

Facts: A complaint was lodged by the Allahabad Bank against its advocate Girish Verma stating that the advocate was given 52 suits for filing and accordingly paid him the requisite court fee that was required for the same. The Advocate Girish Verma filed 50 out of 52 suits and misappropriated the court fees paid to him for the remaining 2 suits.

Held: The disciplinary committee of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council held that the advocate had misappropriated the court fee paid to him by the complainant and hence ordered for striking off the advocates name from the roll of Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. It further held that “The legal profession is a noble profession and its members must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation.”

V. C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopalan 1979 SCR (1) 1054

Facts: The advocate Mr. V.C. Rangadurai did not disclose conflicting interest to his client and kept him in dark. By doing this the advocate deceived his client who had placed his trust with him. The disciplinary committee found the advocate guilty and suspended him for a period of six years. The same order was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Held: The Supreme Court of India upheld the order passed by the disciplinary committee as there was no doubt regarding the advocates misconducts but reduced the punishment from six years to one year.

Rajendra Pai Vs. Alex Fernandes AIR 2002 SC 1808

Facts: In a land acquisition matter the advocate along with 150 villagers filed a complaint. The advocate too was an interested party in the class action suit. The matter was settled and a compensation was given to the complainants. The advocate identified some claimants in opening a bank account wherein the amount of compensation was drawn. The said amount was withdrawn upon false identification. The disciplinary committee held that advocates name from the State roll and Bar Council of India shall be removed permanently.

Held: The order was then challenged in the Supreme Court wherein the disciplinary committee’s order was slightly modified. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the punishment given was quite disproportionate to the facts and circumstances. It further stated that “Debarring a person from pursuing his career for his life is an extreme punishment and calls for caution and circumspection before being passed”. It reduced the punishment and directed that the advocate shall be suspended for a period of seven years.

Joginder Singh vs Bar Council Of India AIR 1975 Delhi 192 

Facts: In the present matter the advocate was convicted under section 473 of IPC. There were various other criminal proceedings pending and that the advocate Mr. Joginder Singh was out on bail. All these facts were concealed by him while entering his name in the state bar roll. When the advocate filed an application to the Bar Council of India to transfer his name from U.P. Bar Council to Bar Council of Delhi the Bar Council of India learnt about such concealment and issued a notice for striking of the advocate’s name. The disciplinary committee passed an order of barring the advocate from practicing in any court and removed his name from the roll.

Held: The advocate being aggrieved by the order of the bar council appealed in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court was of the opinion that there was no interference required in the said matter as the order passed by the bar council was in accordance with the evidence, facts and circumstances. Thus, the appeal was rejected and the order of the disciplinary committee was upheld.

John D’Souza vs Edward Ani 1994 AIR 975

Facts: Mrs. Mary Raymond was a client of the appellant and had got her will drafted by him. She further kept the will in the appellant’s custody itself for execution. Mrs. Mary Raymond had appointed her husband as the executor of the will but unfortunately her husband passed away in the year 1974. Hence, she wished to make changes in the previous will and register a new one. Upon demanding the same, the appellant did not return the same. Mrs. Mary Raymond sent two letters claiming her previous will back but both her letters were ignored. Therefore, she was compelled to make an another will with Mr. George DaCosta. Even Mr. George DaCosta asked the appellant to return his client’s previous will that was in his custody to which the appellant blatantly denied and said that he does not have any will with him. Later, after Mrs. Mary Raymond’s death her son-in-law filed a complaint in the State bar council against the advocate i.e. the appellant. The said complaint was dismissed. An order or revision was obtained by the complainant and the matter was again placed before the state bar council who again dismissed the complaint stating there was no misconduct committed by the advocate. Aggrieved by such an order the complainant filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India who set aside the State Bar Council’s order and suspended the Advocate for a period of one year.

Held: On being aggrieved by such an order the advocate Mr. John D’Souza filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. After hearing the matter in detail, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence to prove that the will was returned upon the demands made and that the advocate had no right to withhold the will instead it was his duty to return the same when asked as the will was placed in his hands with the trust of his client. Hence, the order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council Of India was upheld.

Conclusion

The advocates play a significant role in the Judicial system. One relies on them completely by setting their complete trust. It is important for an advocate to discharge it’s responsibilities in a precise and efficient manner. Being in the legal profession and a officer of the court, an advocate is required to maintain high standards and uphold the dignity of the judicial office. Any misconduct of an advocate shall not be tolerable as this shall affect the trust and attitude of the people towards the judicial environment. In order to ensure that such irresponsible and irrational behaviour does not go unpunished a disciplinary committee has been set up and given powers to conduct such matters involving fraud, misconduct and cheating committed by an advocate towards his own client