An order of the Bar Council of India dated 27.2.1999 passed in BCI TR No.73/1997 refusing to enquire into a complaint of purported misconduct on the part of the respondent herein is in question in this appeal preferred by the Appellant herein under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Facts Of The Case
A rent control proceeding was initiated by the respondent landlord, an advocate, against the appellant tenant. While the proceeding was pending in the Small Cause Court, the appellant filed a complaint before the State Bar Council against the first respondent alleging the following acts of omission and commission constituting misconduct:

1. On 8.10.1993, when the appellant came out of the court hall of the said court after attending the appeal pending there, the first respondent allegedly came from behind and hit him on his back and ran away.
2. On 26.10.1993, while the appellant was coming out of the court hall, the first respondent accompanied by some rowdy elements threatened to kill him. The matter was allegedly reported to the police on the same day.
3. On 1.3.1995, when the learned Xth Judge left for his chamber during the lunch break and while the appellant was leaving the court hall along with his advocate Shri S. Vijayranjan, the first respondent kicked him on the knee of his left leg in the courtroom with an intention to cause injury and further asked him not to appear in the court for evidence.

The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu upon receipt of the said complaint of the appellant herein initiated a proceeding. The matter ultimately appeared to have been transferred to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India.

Impugned Order of the Bar Council:
The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India noticed that in relation to the aforementioned acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, no criminal proceeding was initiated by filing a complaint petition by the appellant. No charge sheet had also been filed by the police in relation to the occurrence dated 26.10.1993 wherefore an FIR had been lodged. It was further accepted that the first respondent had not been appearing in the aforementioned rent control proceedings as an advocate but as a party in person.

With regard to the fact that till the date of passing of the impugned order neither the appellant herein produced any document to substantiate any follow-up action on his part in respect of the complaint filed by him before the police authority, nor did he file any private complaint, the committee was prime facie of the view that the factum of occurrence of the said incidents are not reliable.

Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant filed the present Appeal before the Supreme Court of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Issues Raised

• Whether the respondent is guilty of the conduct alleged against him?
• Whether the respondent can be penalised under Section 35 of the Advocates Act?

Law Points

• Section 38 - Appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Section 35 - Punishment of advocates for misconduct. (1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.

Arguments by the Appellant

• As per Section 35 of the Advocates Act an advocate on the roll of the Bar Council can be proceeded against for committing any misconduct which may not be confined to professional misconduct; the Bar Council grossly erred in passing the impugned order.
• Having regard to the fact that the first respondent assaulted the complainant, asked him not to proceed with the case and on the third occasion kicked him as a result whereof he fell down are clear pointers to the fact that such acts are not expected of a member of a legal profession and, thus, the same must be held to be acts of misconduct.

Arguments by the Respondent

• The appellant herein had been harassing the respondent by initiating false cases and in fact the complaint in question against the respondents is the eighth one and no relief had been granted in the other seven complaints.
• Neither any private complaint having been filed nor any proceeding in the criminal courts having been initiated by the appellant herein and further no evidence in support thereof having been produced before the Bar Council, the arguments of the appellant stand no merit.

Judgement
The Supreme Court observed that:
Misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, of 1961. Misconduct, inter alia, envisages a breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, "improper behaviour intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour"

This Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, reported in 1992 (4) SCC 54, noticed:
(6) the word 'misconduct' though not capable of precise of definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful in character; forbidden act a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in the performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character.

Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject manner and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order."

Section 35 of the Advocates Act, however, refers to the imposition of punishment for professional or other misconduct. A member of the legal profession which is a noble one is expected to maintain a standard in a dignified and determined manner. The standard required to be maintained by the member of the legal profession must be commensurate with the nobility thereof. A Lawyer is obligated to observe those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as an officer of the court.

It was further observed that although the power of the Bar Council is not limited, the thrust of charge must be such it would necessitate initiation of disciplinary proceedings. A professional or other misconduct committed by a member of the profession should ordinarily be judged by profession.

In the present case:
The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India is a statutory body. In the first instance, the duty to arrive at a finding of facts in respect of a complaint made against a member of the legal profession is upon it. This court although enjoys extensive and wide jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act, the opinion of the Bar Council shall carry great weight. The appellant herein had lodged a complaint with the State Bar Council on 5.3.1995 in relation to the 3 incidents that allegedly occurred on 8.10.1993, 26.10.1993 and 1.3.1995.

The Disciplinary Committee had considered the conduct of the appellant herein in order to judge whether the acts on the part of the respondents amount to misconduct.

There was absolutely no reason as to why the appellant did not make any complaint to the State Bar Council immediately of the incidents which took place on 8.10.1993 and 26.10.1993. If his contention to the effect that in relation to the incident dated 26.10.1993 he had lodged a first information report there was absolutely no reason as to why he did not pursue the same seriously.

In relation to the incident dated 01.03.1995 which allegedly took place inside the courtroom, it was expected of the appellant or his advocate, who is said to be a retired district judge, to bring the same to the notice of the court. Even in relation to the incidents that allegedly occurred on 08.10.1993 and 26.10.1993, no complaint was made before the presiding officer of the court. No proceeding was initiated in relation to the purported incident on 01.03.1995.

The hon’ble Supreme Court thus held that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned order.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

EFFECT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court's decision in Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2440 serves as a crucial reference point in understanding the boundaries of professional conduct expected from advocates in India. It delineates the necessity for allegations of misconduct to be firmly grounded in actions directly related to an advocate's professional responsibilities, rather than personal grievances or unrelated incidents. This case reinforces the principle that while advocates are held to high ethical standards, not all personal actions outside their professional duties can be construed as professional misconduct.