The Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed an order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) suspending a woman-lawyer's (petitioner) bar license over alleged misconduct. [An Advocate v Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa].A Bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna stayed the order after noting that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the BCI which did not give the lawyer adequate time to respond to the allegations. "Further the principles of natural justice appear to have been thrown to the winds which was expected from a responsible statutory body, which is clear from the fact that affidavits of the complaint dated 13 April 2024 were served on the petitioner on the day of the hearing i.e. on 14 April 2024 without any opportunity being granted to the petitioner to deal with such new material, and astonishingly on the same day the impugned order is stated to have been passed," the Court said.The Court observed that procedural fairness and natural justice were severely compromised during the proceedings before the BCI. The Bench also noted that the BCI order would have significant civil consequences for the petitioner, a veteran of 24 years at the bar..The petitioner was suspended by BCI for two years for allegedly throwing other advocates' briefs on the floor and for using the facilities of the Advocate Association of Western India’s (AAWI) bar room despite not being a member of the association.The suspension order was passed by the BCI in April 2024, following a complaint filed by three lawyers from AAWI..The incident occurred on April 4, 2016, in Room No. 18 of the Bombay High Court, designated as the bar room for AAWI members. The lawyer allegedly threw the briefs of the complainants on the floor after a dispute over space and facilities, which the complainants claimed inconvenienced them. The incident was filmed by one of the complainants but the Advocate Association of Western India did not file a complaint at the time.Over a year and a half later, on September 8, 2017, a complaint was filed with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG). Initially treated under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, the proceedings were later transferred to the BCI without informing the petitioner..During the hearing, the counsel representing the petitioner, argued that the Bar Council's actions were procedurally flawed. He emphasized that the complaint, filed long after the alleged incident, was retaliatory in nature for the petitioner’s previous sexual harassment complaints against BCMG members. He also pointed out that new affidavits were submitted just a day before the hearing, leaving the petitioner no time to respond. Additionally, he noted that the BCI, which was order passed on April 14, 2024, was not sent to the petitioner until August 29, 2024, and was received by the petitioner only on September 2, 2024..On the other hand, the counsel representing the BCI did not dispute the petitioner’s concerns regarding the procedural lapses but stated that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 38 of the Advocates Act to challenge the order in the Supreme Court. However, the Court examined the the fundamental issues of fairness and transparency in the proceedings.In its ruling, the Court emphasized the serious implications of the suspension order on the petitioner’s livelihood, noting that the advocate has been practicing law for 24 years. "In our opinion not only substantive fairness but procedural fairness was required to be adhered to, by the respondents in conducting the impugned proceedings against the petitioner," the Bench stated. But such principles were thrown to the wind by the BCI, the Court noted..The Court also expressed concern over the delay in passing and processing the order."Further, almost seven years were taken to pass orders on the said complaint, and that too, the hearing being wrapped up on 14 April 2024, in the manner as noted by us." Pertinently, the Court noted that there was a delay of more than four months in sending the copy of the order to the petitioner."What is further disturbing is that although an order was stated to have been passed on 14 April 2024, as to how it could be forwarded to the petitioner, after almost four months, which was received by the petitioner on 2 September 2024 itself raises serious doubts on the legal propriety of the impugned order. This, as contended on behalf of the petitioner certainly is neither acceptable nor logical," the Court said..Senior Advocate Santosh Paul appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Yogendra Rajgor represented the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.Advocate Shekhar Jagtap along with advocate Sairuchita Choudhary appeared for Bar Council of India.Additional Public Prosecutor PJ Gavhane appeared for the State..[Read Order]
