The Bar Council of Delhi has moved the Delhi Hgh Court against a single-judge order directing it to furnish details of all the pending complaints against Advocates.
The Council has argued that the order is bad in law as there is no provision allowing interference by way of writ jurisdiction by the High Courts or any other court, except the Supreme Court in the day-to-day functioning of the Bar Councils and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings.
It was further argued that as per the Advocates Act, 1961, State Bar Councils as well as the Bar Council of India (BCI) are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.
The single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh, had last month, observed that parties file complaints against opposite Counsels over insubstantial issues putting Lawyers to 'harassment and frustration'.
She had opined that such repeated Bar council complaints cannot be countenanced unless some severe misconduct case is made out.
The complaint was filed by four lawyers challenging the impugned notices issued by the Bar Council of Delhi calling upon the Petitioners to appear before it personally and file a reply in regard to complaint filed by the authorised representative of one Respondent in the case they are litigating.
They submitted that the present complaint of which the BCD has taken cognisance of, is the second complaint on the same allegations and the last one was filed in November last year.
However, thereafter, the said Respondent approached Trial Court in the absence of BCD having powers of reviewing their orders. The Trial Court then went on to observe that order dismissing the complaint filed by applicant herein before BCD may have been dismissed but that does not mean that Bar Council of Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding misconduct of Advocates.
The Court after persuing material on records and taking into accounts the submissions, prima-facie established that the complaints which have been filed are identical in nature before the BCD.
The first complaint was dismissed by BCD but the second complaint has been entertained, the court pointed out.
In this backdrop, the Court expressed that it has noticed with some concern that on a regular basis, there are several petitions which are filed relating to complaints against advocates, where BCD is delaying the examination of the same.
The Court in this view, had directed the BCD to place on record a detailed chart giving the details of all pending complaints against Advocates, which shall include the dates of filing of those complaints and the dates of first notices in all those matters within six weeks.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments