Case Facts:
The State Bar Council, referred to as the local Appellant, has lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of India, which is one of the respondents. The roots of this complaint can be traced back to the time when the staff meeting was evacuated by potential defendants to enter the Magistrate's Court, to seize their files, which often led to a physical dispute, and to plead guilty.

This misconduct has shocked the public that the Maharashtra High Court has filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Maharashtra. The disciplinary committee of the Maharashtra Legal Council, as provided under Section 35 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, recommended that the case be dismissed. By examining the matter, and because of its multiplicity, all 8 cases files were tried simultaneously as a unified process and were rejected by the same decision by the Disciplinary Committee of the Legislative Council of India.

One such respondent, A. K. Doshi argued that:
the decision of the Legislature did not mean that we had reason to believe that the lawyers involved were guilty of misconduct in the workplace.

The Court argued that:
the need for a 'reason for believing' could not be construed as a legal necessity, as it is a barrier to dealing with trivial questions. It is clear from the decision of the Legislative Council, in which he said that he had considered the complaint and decided to refer the matter to the disciplinary committee, that he had reason to believe, as prescribed by law.

The Disciplinary Committee of the State Legislature considered the nature of the acts as misconduct in the workplace, suspending the students for three years. An application was lodged with the appellate court, the Bar Council of India, which, in terms of Section 37 (1), referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for further investigation. The Bar Council of India amended the order passed by the State Bar Council on the grounds that the alleged acts "do not cross the line of misconduct in the workplace". This decision was based on a three-point formula that attorneys must have:

1. the application function;
2. to another person and (iii) in respect of a case.

It would not be an understatement to think that all three of these things would be enough to justify one's actions or behavior. Released by a decision of the Bar Council of India, the State Bar Council went to the Supreme Court to make amends for the loss, under the conditions set out under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. This is why the current appeal took place.

Main Issues raised

1. Whether the prosecuted practitioners are guilty of professional misconduct?
2. Whether the State Bar Council is considered an aggrieved party since it has suffered any legal grieving and since the Bar Council of India has not deprived the State Bar Council of anything?

Analysis:
Before I begin with the analysis of the case, it will be appropriate to quote a paragraph from Clause-25 of the Contract, which reads as follows:
There is a decision by the Judiciary to consider the appeal and then decided to refer to the disciplinary committee, that it had reason to believe that, as determined by the proclamation, such a tribunal, which has so far been concerned, is fully compliant with the defendant in a joint case against the common disciplinary proceedings. [1]

A strategy that is confusing and discriminatory as we will explain later in the course of this judgment. Respondents within the various applications before us were found guilty of ‘misconduct in the eyes of the public eye’ and that they were suspended from serving as Attorneys for a period of three years. Appeals were referred to the Legislative Council of India and in accordance with the law, said the Disciplinary Committee appointed by it under Section 37 (2) of the Act.[2]

The Disciplinary Committee heard appeals from applicants for exempt from misconduct in the workplace. Disappointed by the decision to amend, the Maharashtra Legal Council appealed to the current Court. The first barrier to locus standi has been reduced as mentioned earlier, subject to controversy over the suitability of Shri V. S. Desai on behalf of the applicant.

He chose the accuracy of the findings of the case in each case despite having varying degrees of diversity, but changed his criminal view with the alarming sense of professional misconduct adopted by the Disciplinary Tribunal to continue to present each complaint separately so far because the true cost basis is concerned but only discuss legal issues later. They became respondents but Bar in India and therefore the community within the country.

The deep remorse of such cases is not only in the rebellious view of the disciplinary court of the professional ethics law that attempted to solicit snatches and arrest clients has no time to behave, or to violate appropriate provisions, but also on the innocence of the proper and speedy procedure shown by the State Disciplinary Tribunal cases of 16 attorneys in one case, mixing evidence against many, recording evidence of an omnibus declaration, not keeping a record of daily procedures, examining witnesses internally in the absence of other respondents, it takes eight years to complete an effort involving 4 witnesses and a crown, the omission of the consideration of evidence against each individual criminal offender in the sentencing process.

Of course, a court of law may regulate its proceedings without much difficulty, depending on the 'principles of natural justice,[3]' but the widespread disregard for the known justice system makes us consider whether respondents are not disabled and whether justice would be dangerous if the court was not informed of its travel activities.

Respondents appealed the Court's decision in the case of Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi[4] AIR 1971 SC 385 that the Bar Council of the State is not an aggressive person to pursue an appeal against the decision of its disciplinary committee on these grounds.

They said that first of all, the Bar Council of a State is not a victim because the Bar Council has never dealt with legal complaints, and the decision of the Bar Council of India has nothing to do with the Bar Council of State.

Second, the allegations that the order of the disciplinary committee of the Indian Legislative Council was improperly filed are not appealing to the Legislative Council. One should be offended by the order and not by the consequences.

Thirdly, it is not the job of the State Legal Council to try to rectify any alleged wrongdoing of the disciplinary committee of the Indian Legal Council. The reason is that no such work is prescribed or regulated by law in the State Legislature.

Fourth, a person can be said to be upset about an order that could harm him, that is, to make money or something else or that causes him to be prejudiced in some way or another.
 Fifth, the Bar Council of a State is subject to the Legislative Council of India and, therefore, cannot lodge an appeal against any order of the higher body. Finally, an appeal may have been lodged by the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General of India who is entitled to appeal but have chosen not to do so.

They went on to say "we have written recommendations for the State Court and for appeals in the further stages of this judgment[5]. However, we find it easy to lose complaints in evidence, in the belief that if, in fact, there is a snatch and a fight and as an exercise persuaded by any of the respondents, that behaviour is a serious violation of professional performance and calls for punishment. Criminal convictions are appealing and started with Dabholkar who came out of nowhere to defend himself. In addition, one of the witnesses who testified against him swears:
‘I have never seen him snatch the papers. I did not hear Mr Dabholkar's speech with the people '.

In addition, he was a senior lawyer. We also record the very fact that you have expressed concern because the arguments have continued. Aside from the weak and compelling evidence against him, there is a case that he is 68 years old. With a true hoop, he revealed that he was too old to continue doing his job in this profession and decided to retire into a defeated valley of life.

He openly admitted that however the evidence was that, if there had been past sins, he would not have followed in the footsteps of misconduct at work, after this he had decided to leave the Bar without a Limited Purpose. He had only four cases left to decide. He also stated that he failed to highlight any new documents or appear in any Court other than the lesser degree Bombay Paints & Allied Products.

Conclusion:
The term victim has a broad meaning and may not be construed as limited translation. They don’t include, of course, a busy person who interrupts things that don’t affect him; but they do include a person who is lodging a real complaint because an order has been improperly applied to his or her intentions. Does the Attorney-General have sufficient interest in this purpose?

Their kingship thinks they have it; the Attorney General in the extreme colony represents the crown on behalf of the general public interest. It is his duty to bring before the judge any misconduct of the attorney or attorney who has a dragging force for disciplinary action. The Bar is not a private organization, such as that of ‘barber, butcher and candle makers’ but, by comparison, a public institution committed to social justice and unpaid public service.

The granting of a private license to practice law is based on three assumptions:

1. There is a public service to be performed by an attorney.
2. An attorney may be an expert in the profession and
3. His or her professional experience is controlled by him or her and legally, by the employee in full.

The medium function to be performed in the bar is nothing but the management of. To oversee the activities of the Legislative Council, and it will be seen that the rainbow of civil society organizations, including legal aid to the poor, seeks these bodies in the national hope that the members of this state will serve the public and maintain good ethical standards.
Because, in the end, can't we all be alone at the same time in the 'internal bencher and bar republic'?

The favorite rebels are lawyers working in criminal courts in Bombay City. Their work sets high moral standards for the highest value within the means as at the end. Justice cannot be achieved without broadcasting being a pellucid throughout its course of great concern to the public, not just professional care. In short, these workers, according to the evidence; Recorded by the State Disciplinary Tribunal, they stopped at the entrance of the Magistrate's Courts, awaiting the arrival of the plaintiffs.

End-Notes:

1. Clause 25 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 referred
2. Section 37, clause 2 of the Advocates Act referred
3. Principle of natural justice clause referred.
4. AIR 1971 SC 385 Adi pherozgandhi vs UOI referred.
5. Advocates Act referred.

References:

1. Online Sources:
   
   1. http://www.manupatrafast.com/ipAccess.aspx
   2. http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/qq1nr126
2. Bare Acts Referred:
   
   1. Statues and Laws, professional misconduct
   2. The Advocates Act, 1961

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Ashish Dash - 1st year law student at Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad.

Authentication No: MA114220138236-22-0521