9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Professional misconduct by an advocate engaging in taxi business without permission from the Bar Council. Analysis: The case involves an appeal challenging the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, which suspended an advocate from practice for one year due to allegations of professional misconduct. The complainant accused the advocate of engaging in a taxi business without the necessary permission from the Bar Council, which was considered a violation of the rules governing advocates' conduct. The evidence presented before the Disciplinary Committee focused on whether the advocate had indeed committed the alleged misconduct. Upon review, it was revealed that the advocate had enrolled with the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council in 1990 while his family was involved in a taxi business, and he owned four taxis at that time. However, the advocate claimed to have transferred ownership of the taxis to other individuals after becoming an advocate, ceasing his involvement in the taxi business. The Disciplinary Committee found the advocate guilty of professional misconduct based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant Bar Council rules, particularly Rule 47, which prohibits advocates from personally engaging in any business but allows for being a sleeping partner in a business not conflicting with the dignity of the legal profession. Rule 48 permits advocates to hold certain positions in companies without executive duties. The Court emphasized that charges of professional misconduct require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, akin to a quasi-criminal charge. The Court found that the evidence against the advocate was insufficient to establish misconduct. Despite owning the taxis, there was no concrete proof that the advocate continued the taxi business after enrolling as an advocate. The advocate's statement that he had stopped the taxi business post-enrollment remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The Court concluded that the evidence was vague and did not conclusively prove the misconduct charge. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Disciplinary Committee's decision and setting aside the suspension order, as the charge against the advocate was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
