Supreme Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Costs on Maharashtra & Goa Bar Council for Frivolous Complaints
The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed a total cost of ₹1 lakh on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for pursuing baseless disciplinary proceedings against two advocates – Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing two special leave petitions arising out of disciplinary action initiated by the BCMG. The Court dismissed both petitions, calling them meritless.
Case Against Advocate Rajiv Narula
The first case related to a complaint alleging professional misconduct by Advocate Narula in a 1985 civil suit. The complainant claimed his property was wrongly included in the settlement terms and accused Narula of fraud. In July 2023, the BCMG referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Narula argued that he had never represented the complainant or his predecessor and had only identified a party in the consent terms. The Bombay High Court stayed the proceedings, after which the BCMG approached the Supreme Court.
The top court found the complaint “mala fide” and held that Narula’s arraignment was unjustified since there was no professional relationship between him and the complainant. It also criticised the BCMG’s referral order as vague and showing no application of mind. Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaint and imposed ₹50,000 costs on BCMG, payable to Narula.
Case Against Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri
The second case arose from a complaint filed by Advocate Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad against Advocate Shastri. She was accused of misconduct for identifying the deponent of an affidavit and certifying copies of documents. The complainant alleged that since the affidavit contained false statements, Shastri was responsible for forgery and perjury.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the complaint, observing that Shastri had not sworn to the affidavit and was not accountable for its contents. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the complaint was malicious and devoid of substance. It termed the BCMG’s order “illegal, perverse, and a case of malicious prosecution.”
The Court dismissed the appeal and directed both the BCMG and the complainant to pay ₹50,000 each to Shastri.
With these findings, the Supreme Court strongly cautioned against misuse of disciplinary proceedings to harass advocates.
