The following is a summary of the case known as the "Advocate's Misconduct Case": Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, Bombay and Others. Under Section 38 of the Advocates Act of 1961, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India heard an appeal in this matter. According to the facts of this case, the appellant and another individual identified "A" have been accused of professional misconduct in violation of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for their behaviour in 2 different circumstances.

They were found guilty of this misconduct by the disciplinary committee, which was established in accordance with Section 9 of the Advocates Act, and were consequently suspended for 2 months for "A" and 4 months for the appellant. The current case is an appeal against the accusation of professional misconduct that has been levelled and the order of suspension before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. In this case, the honourable court outlined what constitutes professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Act as well as the criteria used to find such misconduct. The case also emphasizes how crucial it is for advocates to operate within the confines of the law and give their clients the best guidance possible.

Primary Details Of The Case
Case No.: Civil Appeal No 720 (NCM) of 1976
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Case Filed On: 1976
Case Decided On: October 20, 1983
Judges: Justice A.P. Sen, Justice E. S. Venkatarmiah, Justice R. B. Misra
Legal Provisions Involved: Advocates Act, 1961- Section 9, 35, 36, 36B, 38, 42; Bar Council of India Rules- Part VII, Chapter-1

Brief Facts Of The Case
This case is an appeal against the suspension order passed by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India. The appeal has been brought under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Advocate V. J. Francis has represented the appellant in this case. V. N. Ganpule and V. D. Khanna were Advocates for respondents in this case. In this case, a complaint was brought before the disciplinary committee constituted under Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The complaint was brought by 12 Advocates practicing at 2 courts of the Sub-Divisional Magistrates in the Collectorate of Poona under Part VII, Chapter-1 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The complaint is against appellant P. D. Khandekar and A. N Agavane. The complaint was transferred to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India by the virtue of Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as the State Bar Council failed to dispose of the complaint within one year from the receipt of the complaint under Section 35 of the act. In this case, two charges have been levelled against the appellant- P.D. Khandekar and A.N Agavane:

1. On January 7, 1974, the appellant and Agavane got 2 people remarried S. B. Potdar and Smt. Leelawati Dhavale even though the divorce of the aforesaid 2 people was not as per the legal requirements. The charge on both advocates is that in order to receive Rs. 100 as their fee they induced the couple into swearing-in an affidavit before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona stating that they have divorced their spouses and got remarried in Poona. This affidavit would be sufficient proof of their remarriage as per Hindu rites.
    
2. On February 22, 1974, the appellant Agavane prepared an affidavit stating that Smt. Sonubai Girju Valekar had gifted her land to her grand-daughter Smt. Mangala Ramesh Ghorpade. All Advocates Smt. Sonubai Girju Valekar suggested she go for the formation of gift deed and must submit registration fees and stamp duty fees for making such transfer.

 However, the appellant and Agavane suggested she does not need to make payment of any registration fees and they would get the work done through affidavit on payment of Rs 45. Therefore, the advocates have brought a complaint against the appellant under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Part VII Chapter-1 of the Bar Council of India Rules alleging professional misconduct on the part of the appellant and Agavane as per Section 35 of the act.

Issues Involved In The Case

1. Whether the acts are done by the appellant advocates tantamount to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act?
2. What is the test to determine as to what constitutes professional misconduct under the Advocates Act?

Arguments Of The Parties
Appellant

• The appellant pleaded that the case instituted against him is a frame-up and frivolous.
• The appellant submitted that the affidavit prepared by them for the remarriage of Mr. Potdar and Mrs. Dhavale as per the instructions given by them.
• The appellant further submitted that he did not make any affidavit containing any details of the transfer of land as a gift by Mrs. Mangala and receipt of any money in exchange for that.

Legal Aspects Involved In The Case
The legal aspects in this case involved are as follows

Advocates Act, 1961

• Section 9 (Constitution of Disciplinary committees in State Bar Council and All India Bar Council)
• Section 35 (Punishment of advocates for misconduct)
• Section 36 (Disciplinary powers of Bar Council of India)
• Section 36B (Disposal of disciplinary proceedings)
• Section 38 (Appeal to Supreme Court of India)
• Section 42 (Powers of disciplinary committee)

Bar Council of India Rules

• Part VII, Chapter-1 (Complaints against advocates and procedure to be followed by Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India)

Judgement In Brief
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave the following verdict in the present case.

• Advocates act as loco parentis for their clients and they must follow norms of the profession as well as protect the clients.
   
• The legal advice rendered by an advocate must not be improper in nature. There is a difference between 'Wrong-legal advice' and 'Improper legal advice'. The rendering of 'Improper legal advice' with ulterior motive can be classified as professional misconduct.
   
• Mere negligence in preparing the legal documents with no moral delinquencies must not amount to professional misconduct.
   
• The test to affirm 'professional misconduct' has been outlined in various cases. The court relied on the case In re A Solicitor Ex parte the Law Society (1912) 1 KB 302 in which the court laid down that when a person in pursuit of his profession does something which brings disgrace or dishonour to the profession, they are working in then it to be held as 'Professional Misconduct'.
   
• The court held that it is not misconduct or unprofessional on the part of the appellant and Agavane to draft an affidavit on instructions of the client. Furthermore, the clients of the appellant in question here are of reasonable prudence owing to their power to understand of what they were doing. The evidence submitted by the complainant was not found to be substantial.
   
• The court held the second charge on the appellant and Agavane to be of no basis due to lack of substantial evidence connecting the appellant to the affidavit in question.
   
• Placing reliance on the case of A, a' Pleader v. Judges of Madras High Court (AIR 1930 PC 144) in which the Privy Council held that charges of professional misconduct must be proved and should not be inferred on the ground of mere suspicion. The Court set aside the order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India against the appellant and 'A' and dropped the proceedings against them under Section 35 of the Act.
   
• The court further suggested the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils take adequate steps and allocation of funds to organize the legal profession and proper schemes and training must be held by the bar in order to provide proper guidance to the new generation of lawyers for an efficient process of law.

Commentary
The present case is Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, Bombay and Others also known as 'Advocates Misconduct Case' is an appeal against suspension orders passed by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India on the grounds of professional misconduct.

The verdict of the court was not guilty which has been elaborated above. Advocates have been regarded as the officers of the court. This has been reiterated even by our Hon'ble apex court in the cases of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Anr (2003) 2 SCC 45) and U. P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra and others (1995 SCC (5) 716). Advocates have a duty towards the court as well as the clients they are attached to. The sanctity of the legal profession, as well as the faith in the judiciary, can only be ascertained if advocates do their job with due diligence and integrity.

In the present case, 2 Advocates suffered suspension although there was no evidence of misconduct found against them. As per Section 42 of the Advocates Act, 1961 the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India and Bar Councils of State as to have powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, in my opinion, the proceedings so conducted are judicial in nature and the disciplinary committee must act in accordance with that.

In the present case, it has failed to acknowledge the lack of evidence against the advocates and passed an order of suspension which is erroneous in nature. The court's reliance on the actual meaning of professional misconduct has been perfect in my opinion. The advocates do not show an ulterior motive in their actions of advice so given. Their advice was incorrect maybe but not improper in nature along with an intention to damage the clients.

The affidavit made by them was on the dictate of their own clients who were well aware of their actions. Furthermore, the second charge is merely based on suspicion and there has been no evidence presented. The bar council's committee has thus committed a grave error in suspending the advocates merely because of suspicion and conjecture.

The court has placed reliance on various verdicts and has explained the true meaning of 'professional misconduct' as well as explained the test of determining such 'misconduct' very aptly. Lastly, the court's advice to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to devise schemes and training for new Advocates enrolled in the bar for an efficient running of the legal profession and the judicial system is necessary and even today it is the need of the hour.

Important Cases Referred

• A, a' Pleader v. Judges of Madras High Court, (AIR 1930 PC 144)
• Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 45
• U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra and Ors. (1995 SCC (5) 716)
• In re A Solicitor Ex parte the law Society (1912) 1 KB 302