Lawyers must remain disciplined to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the entire legal profession, observed the Supreme Court on Monday [R. Karmegam v. Hariharasudan]..A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar made the oral observation while dismissing an appeal by an advocate challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) disciplinary action of suspending him from legal practice for seven years after he allegedly drove his car into a Madurai hotel that was owned by the complainant."See your conduct. As a lawyer, you dashed your car into the hotel of the complainant. Lawyers need to be disciplined and not spoil the image of the entire profession," the Court said..The BCI had initially suspended the lawyer for a year.The complainant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on noting that the BCI order fairly addressed the rights of both parties. The Court said that it saw no valid reason to interfere with the BCI's decision, by its October 2022 ruling. The complainant then filed a review petition before the BCI, which enhanced the lawyer's suspension to seven years."This committee is of the view that the plea of the complainant for removal of the respondent from the roll of advocates would be a very harsh punishment and a chance can be given to him to reform himself. The committee is of the view that in the interest of proportionality and fairness, the punishment of suspension of seven years would be appropriate to serve the interest of justice," the Disciplinary Committee of BCI said in its April 2025 order.The suspended lawyer (appellant) then approached the Supreme Court challenging the revised punishment..Advocate Abhinav Agrawal, appearing for the appellant, argued that there is no provision for review under the Advocates Act, 1961. He added that once the order initially passed by the BCI had been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022, the doctrine of merger applied, thereby precluding the Bar Council from reopening the matter through a review. However, the Court declined to entertain these arguments and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
