Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking quashing of the order dated 27-02-2025, passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) wherein the BCI has inter-alia, prohibited the petitioner from doing any legal practice as well as to set aside the order dated 23-03-2024, issued by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. Mini Pushkarna, J., issued notice to the respondents and suspended the operation of Para 15(iv) of the BCI’s said order dated 27-02-2025, and listed the matter for further hearing on 01-08-2025.
The controversy arose from a set of directions issued by the BCI in its order dated 27-02-2025. These directions included:
(i) No interference with the impugned decision of the State Bar Council;
(ii) A directive to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to lodge a police complaint, preferably with the Vigilance Department of Haryana Police;
(iii) A request to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against the petitioner and others and conclude such proceedings within six months;
(iv) A specific direction prohibiting the petitioner from practicing law during the pendency of the complaint, citing the possibility of evidence tampering and the petitioner’s dominant position in the District Bar Association, Rohtak;
(v) A show cause notice to the sitting President of the Bar Association, Shri Arvind Kumar Sheoran, regarding his alleged failure to act impartially and why he should not be barred from contesting or holding any future positions.
The petitioner challenged especially Para 15(iv) of the BCI’s order, asserting that the BCI acted ultra vires its statutory authority by debarring the petitioner from practicing law without following the mandatory disciplinary procedure under the Advocates Act, 1961.
To support this contention, reliance was placed on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another, (1998) 4 SCC 409. Specifically, Paragraph 76 of the judgment was highlighted, which clarifies that professional misconduct by an advocate must be adjudicated upon by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, which is required to follow a procedure akin to that of a trial in a criminal case. The Supreme Court had emphasized that an advocate cannot be punished for professional misconduct without being given an opportunity to present evidence and be heard, and that such punishment cannot be imposed even by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Advocates Act without due process.
Counsel for petitioner therefore contended that the BCI’s decision to debar the petitioner from practice without instituting disciplinary proceedings and without recording evidence is a serious violation of procedural fairness and due process, contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Upon hearing these submissions, the Court issued notice to the respondents which was thereby accepted. The Court directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks, with the rejoinder to be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Importantly, the Court took note of the legal infirmity pointed out in respect of Para 15(iv) of the BCI’s order and proceeded to suspend the operation of the said paragraph, thereby staying the prohibition against the petitioner from practicing law, until the next date of hearing.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 01-08-2025.
[Lokinder Singh Phougat v. Bar Council of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2375, decided on 02-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nipun Arora, Mr. Shivender Gupta, Mr. Aman Singh, Ms. Kesri Gupta, Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Mr. Harsh Gautam and Mr. Vignesh, Advocates with petitioner in person
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 1/BCI.
Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik with Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Advocates for respondent nos. 3 and 4.