2003 (5) TMI 508 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Professional Misconduct Allegation
2. Limitation Period for Review Petition u/s 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961
3. Constitutional Validity of Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961

Summary:

Professional Misconduct Allegation:
The respondent, Smt. D. Anuradha, filed a complaint u/s 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging professional misconduct by the appellant, her estranged husband, for operating a telephone booth allotted under the handicapped person's quota despite being an enrolled advocate. The State Bar Council initially dropped the complaint. However, upon a subsequent complaint, the Bar Council of India directed the appellant to surrender the booth. The appellant complied but sought a review of the order, which was dismissed as time-barred.

Limitation Period for Review Petition u/s 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961:
The core issue was the interpretation of the limitation period for filing a review petition u/s 48AA. The Bar Council of India interpreted "the date of that order" as the date the order was passed, not when it was communicated. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period should commence from the date of communication or knowledge of the order to the review-petitioner. The Court referenced similar interpretations in previous cases, emphasizing that a literal interpretation leading to absurdity should be avoided. The Court concluded that the Bar Council retains jurisdiction to review beyond sixty days from the order's date if the review petition is filed within sixty days of the order's communication.

Constitutional Validity of Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Section 48AA, claiming it was unworkable. The Supreme Court, interpreting the provision to mean the date of communication of the order, found the challenge baseless. The Court dismissed the civil writ petition, upholding the provision's validity.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the Bar Council's orders were set aside, restoring the appellant's enrolment as an advocate. The civil writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 48AA was dismissed.