Supreme Court directs BCI to reconsider professional misconduct complaint against Dhir & Dhir partners

The Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) dismissing a revision petition filed by a litigant alleging professional misconduct by Alok Dhir and Maneesha Dhir, the founding partners of law firm Dhir & Dhir Associates..The apex court has directed the BCI to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order within six months..A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held, "What follows from the above is that the ‘what’, i.e., the conclusion, must have the ‘why’, i.e., the reasons (at least in brief), to stand on, which is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of affirmation. On this short ground, we set aside the revisional order of the BCI. BCI is directed to re-consider the revision petition and pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, within six months from date.".The complainant, one Sailesh Bhansali, had engaged Alok Dhir, Maneesha Dhir and the late LP Dhir as his legal representatives. According to him, the lawyers breached their professional and fiduciary duty by representing him and his associated companies in matters where a conflict of interest purportedly existed. .The crux of the allegation is that the Dhirs, while representing Madras Petrochem against its lenders before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), simultaneously acted against its interests through their asset reconstruction company, Dhir & Dhir ARC (D&D ARC).Bhansali alleged that D&D ARC secretly approached Madras Petrochem’s lenders and purchased its debts, exploiting the Dhirs' position of trust to gain confidential financial information under the pretext of providing legal advice and preparing a “rehabilitation proposal.” This insider knowledge allowed the Dhirs to act in their own financial interest through D&D ARC, creating a direct conflict with their duty to represent Madras Petrochem, Bhansali claimed..It was further alleged that after D&D ARC acquired the loans and declared its intent to enforce security, the Dhirs withdrew their legal representation, citing unpaid fees, but concealing D&D ARC’s debt acquisition. When Bhansali, representing Madras Petrochem, sought their continued assistance, they allegedly misled him into providing a "no objection" letter without disclosing their deep ties to D&D ARC or the conflict of interest..He thus filed a complaint against the firm with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) in 2013. The complaint was dismissed in 2015, following which Bhansali approached the BCI against the order of BCD.BCI dismissed the plea in 2024, which prompted an appeal before the Supreme Court."The said order of the BCI notes the facts giving rise to the revision and the arguments of the parties, spread over six pages. On the seventh page, the noting is completed in four lines whereafter the BCI spares merely six lines for dismissing the revision without recording any reason at all. In fact, the ipse dixit of the BCI that the impugned order of the BCD suffers from no infirmity and hence, does not warrant interference, is recorded," the Court said. .The Court noted that while an order of affirmation may not require as elaborate reasoning as an order of reversal, it must still contain some rationale to demonstrate that the authority applied its mind to the case..It thus urged the BCI to reconsider the plea and pass a reasoned order in six months..Bhansali was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan with Advocates A Karthik, Aditya N Mehta, Arsh Khan, Niyomi Jariwala, Smrithi Suresh, Ujjwal Sharma and Sugam Agrawal..Dhir & Dhir was represented by Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji with Advocates Ashu Kansal, Dipanshu Krishnan and Karan Batura. .[Read Judgment]