The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party’s advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council’s referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Unique Construction. Parmar claimed that during this suit, the parties, including Randelia, fraudulently entered into Consent Terms, obtaining a consent decree without the knowledge or consent of his father’s partner, Dara Sarkari. The core allegation was that Advocate Narula, who represented M/s. Unique Construction, suppressed the fact of Sarkari’s interest from the Court. Based on this, the BCMG’s Judge-Advocate took cognizance and referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee. Advocate Narula challenged this reference order before the Bombay High Court, which stayed the disciplinary proceedings. The BCMG then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court should not have interfered with an interim referral order.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began when the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), upon a complaint by Khimji Devji Parmar, passed an order dated July 6, 2023, taking cognizance and referring the matter to its Disciplinary Committee against Advocate Rajiv Narula. Aggrieved by this referral, Narula filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which, vide its interim order dated November 4, 2023, stayed the disciplinary proceedings. The BCMG then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27606 of 2023, challenging the High Court’s stay order. The Supreme Court, after granting leave, heard the appeal and, in its judgment, not only upheld the High Court’s intervention but went further to quash the entire disciplinary complaint and proceedings, thereby concluding the matter at the apex court level.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations, firmly quashing the disciplinary proceedings. It held that an advocate for one party owes no professional duty to the opposing litigant, and a complaint for misconduct cannot be maintained in the absence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate. The Court further emphasized that a State Bar Council’s referral order under Section 35 of the Advocates Act must demonstrate a reasoned prima facie satisfaction of misconduct. It condemned the impugned order as “cryptic and laconic” for its non-application of mind and failure to outline the allegations, rendering it legally unsustainable. The Court also clarified that an advocate’s act of merely identifying a party in consent terms or a deponent to an affidavit does not, in isolation, constitute professional misconduct.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and upheld the High Court’s stay on the disciplinary proceedings. However, it went a decisive step further by invoking its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the disciplinary complaint and all subsequent proceedings in their entirety. The Court held that the complaint was not maintainable as it was filed by an opposing litigant with no jural relationship to the advocate, and that the Bar Council’s referral order was a cryptic, non-reasoned order that failed to meet the statutory mandate of Section 35 of the Advocates Act. As a consequential measure, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the appellant Bar Council for entertaining a frivolous complaint. The connected special leave petitions, which involved a similar issue of an advocate being prosecuted for identifying a deponent, were also dismissed with costs.
Case Details:
Case Title:Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1147 Civil Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 27606 of 2023) Date of Judgement: September 24, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here