Major Judgments of the Supreme Court on Professional Misconduct

In one line

Twelve judgments, arranged by the proposition each one is cited for.

In exam wording: the leading judgments of the Supreme Court on professional misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates Act 1961 establish the meaning of misconduct, its categories, the approach to punishment, and the limits of the disciplinary jurisdiction.

How to use this chapter

Every case below is worked at length in an earlier chapter. This one puts them in one place, grouped by what they decide, because that is how an examiner's question is framed and how a revision should be organised. Each entry gives the facts, the holding, and the proposition.

Group one: what misconduct means

N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde

N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde, AIR 2001 SC 2028, decided 3 May 2001, K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Phukan JJ.

Facts. An advocate defending an accused before a magistrate sought adjournments repeatedly. On 4 December 1993 an adjournment was sought on the ground that he was unable to speak because of a throat infection and continuous cough, but the complainant came across the same advocate "forcefully and fluently" arguing a matter before another court in the same building.

Held. Misconduct under section 35 is not defined; the section uses the expression "misconduct, professional or otherwise"; the word is a relative term to be considered with reference to the subject matter and context, and literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. An advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of misconduct, and seeking adjournments to postpone the examination of witnesses who are present in court, without making other arrangements, is a dereliction of the advocate's duty to the court.

Proposition. The definition of misconduct, and that obstruction of the court's process is misconduct without any dishonesty.

Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli

Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli, AIR 2004 SC 2440, (2004) 5 SCC 689, decided 16 April 2004, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice with S.B. Sinha and S.H. Kapadia JJ.

Facts. A landlord complained that his tenant, an advocate, had struck him outside a court hall, threatened him, and kicked him in a court room. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India refused to enquire, there being no criminal proceeding, no charge-sheet and no follow-up, and the respondent having appeared as a litigant in person and not as an advocate.

Held. The appeal was dismissed. Misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment; it is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude; it is a relative term construed with reference to subject matter and context; and it is improper or wrong behaviour "but not negligence or carelessness."