2017 (4) TMI 1651 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to remand disciplinary proceedings back to the State Bar Council after statutory transfer under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 - Quashing of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings - whether after transfer of a disciplinary proceeding, as per the mandate enshrined under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to the Bar Council of India (BCI) from the State Bar Council, can the BCI, instead of enquiring into the complaint and adjudicating thereon, send it back to the State Bar Council with the direction to decide the controversy within a stipulated time? HELD THAT - There can be no trace of doubt that the original jurisdiction to deal with the complaint stands transferred to the BCI. Once the original jurisdiction is transferred, to rely upon the language that the BCI may dispose of would include any manner of disposal which would include a remand, cannot be thought of. That is neither the legislative intendment nor the legislative purpose. The legislature, as found, never intended a complaint made against an Advocate either from the perspective of the complainant or from the delinquent to be transferred to BCI, again to be sent back. It appropriate to state that there is a distinction between an appellate jurisdiction which the BCI exercises under Section 37 and the original jurisdiction under Section 36B(1). While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the BCI can remand the matter to the State Bar Council. In this context, reference to a three-Judge Bench in Narendra Singh v. Chhotey Singh and another 1983 (8) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT , would be apt. The Court thereafter addressed the issue of scope and ambit of jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial body whose jurisdiction is defined in such as as it deems fit . It referred to the authorities in Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype v. Aba Maruti Mali 1961 (12) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT and opined that the discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred, the object sought to be achieved and the reasons for granting such wide discretion. A reference was made to the decision in O.N. Mahindroo v. District Judge, Delhi 1970 (9) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT wherein this Court has held that dealing with an appeal under Section 38, the jurisdiction of the Court was not restricted, for the Court is dealing with an appeal not only on law but also on appeal on facts. Once a complaint is made by a litigant, it has to follow a definite procedure and is required to be dealt with as per the command of the Act to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council - Every member of the Disciplinary Committee is aware that the proceeding has to be concluded within one year. The complainant and the delinquent advocate are required to cooperate. Not to do something what one is required to do, tantamount to irresponsibility and the prestige of an institution or a statutory body inheres in carrying out the responsibility. One may not be always right in the decision but that does not mean to be shirking away from taking a decision and allow the matter to be transferred by operation of law to the BCI. A statutory authority is obliged to constantly remind itself that the mandate of the statute is expediency and the stipulation of time is mandatory. It will not be erroneous to say that the Disciplinary Committee is expected to perform its duty within a time frame and not to create a blameworthy situation. The order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to remand disciplinary proceedings back to the State Bar Council after statutory transfer under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of legislative intent and statutory provisions related to disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act.
3. The responsibility and duty of State Bar Councils and the BCI in handling disciplinary proceedings within stipulated time frames.
4. The role and conduct expected of legal professionals within the framework of the legal profession's nobility and integrity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to Remand Proceedings:

The central issue in this case was whether the BCI, after a disciplinary proceeding is transferred to it by operation of law under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, can remand the matter back to the State Bar Council. The court clarified that the BCI does not have the authority to remand such cases back to the State Bar Council. Once a case is transferred to the BCI due to the State Bar Council's failure to conclude it within the stipulated time, the BCI is required to exercise original jurisdiction and dispose of the case. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in mandating the BCI to handle such proceedings without remanding them back, thereby ensuring timely and effective resolution of disciplinary matters.

2. Interpretation of Legislative Intent and Statutory Provisions:

The court engaged in a detailed interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 35, 36, and 36B of the Advocates Act. It underscored the importance of understanding the text and context of these provisions to ascertain the legislative intent. The court highlighted that the Act was designed to ensure the timely disposal of disciplinary proceedings and that the transfer of jurisdiction to the BCI is a mechanism to enforce this mandate. The BCI's role, as per the statute, is to conclude the proceedings rather than remand them, which would defeat the purpose of the legislative framework aimed at expeditious justice.

3. Responsibility and Duty of State Bar Councils and the BCI:

The judgment stressed the responsibility of State Bar Councils to conclude disciplinary proceedings within the one-year timeframe stipulated by the Act. The court noted that the failure to do so results in an automatic transfer of jurisdiction to the BCI, which is then obligated to resolve the matter. The court criticized the practice of allowing cases to be transferred due to inaction and emphasized the need for State Bar Councils to actively manage and expedite proceedings. The court advised that State Bar Councils should regularly review the progress of disciplinary cases to avoid unnecessary transfers and ensure compliance with statutory duties.

4. Role and Conduct of Legal Professionals:

The court also took the opportunity to reflect on the nobility and integrity expected of legal professionals. It reiterated that lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have a duty to maintain high standards of conduct both within and outside the courtroom. The judgment referenced past decisions emphasizing the lawyer's role in upholding the administration of justice and the societal expectations of their conduct. The court warned against the casual and indifferent practice of law, which could undermine public confidence in the legal profession and the justice system.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, the order of the BCI's Disciplinary Committee was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the BCI to be decided in accordance with law within three months. The court directed the Registry to send copies of the judgment to all State Bar Councils to ensure awareness and compliance with the statutory obligations outlined in the judgment. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to legislative mandates for timely resolution of disciplinary proceedings and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.