Sign in
Advocates Act

Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula 2025 INSC 1147 - Advocates Act - Disciplinary Committee

CaseCiter

• 3 min read

Advocates Act 1961 - Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of “professional misconduct” (Para 33) - Recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee (DC) for inquiry- Reference of a complaint of the DC would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession. Hence a cryptic order referring the complaint to the DC without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations contained in the complaint would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order (Para 38) The mere act of identifying the deponent in an affidavit filed with the chamber summons would not make the advocate responsible for the contents of the affidavit. (Para 52)

Case Info


Case Details


Case Name:Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.


Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1147


Coram (Judges):

  • Justice Vikram Nath
  • Justice Sandeep Mehta

Judgment Date:24 September 2025


Caselaws and Citations Referred

  • Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of GujaratCitation: 1980 Supp SCC 318(Discussed regarding the requirement for State Bar Council to record reasons before referring a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee.)

Statutes/Laws Referred

  • Advocates Act, 1961
    • Section 35: Punishment of advocates for misconduct (quoted and discussed in detail)
    • Section 37 and Section 38: Mentioned in the explanation to Section 35

Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula 2025 INSC 1147 - Advocates Act - Disciplinary Committee
Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula 2025 INSC 1147 - Advocates Act - Disciplinary Committee .pdf
275 KB
download-circle
Chat With Judgment Via LawLens

Suggested Readings:

Mere Identification Of Deponent In An Affidavit Does Not Make Advocate Responsible For Its Contents: Supreme Court
The Apex Court clarified that merely attesting or identifying the deponent in an affidavit does not render the advocate privy to the statements made therein.
VerdictumMuhib Makhdoomi
Jural Relationship Between Complainant & Advocate Necessary To Invoke Disciplinary Jurisdiction For Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court
The Court also said that the Bar Council must pass a reasoned order before referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee.
Live LawLIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
Supreme Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa For Entertaining Frivolous Complaint Against Advocate
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 24) imposed a cost of Rs 50,000/- on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for entertaining a frivolous complaint against an advocate.The cost has to be…
Live LawAmisha Shrivastava