Disciplinary Committee - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

6Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

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. Uni...

Transparency in Football: Supreme Court Upholds Key Reforms for AIFF, Applies BCCI-Like Principles

This Supreme Court judgment finalizes the AIFF Constitution, mandating compliance with the National Sports Code. Key legal directives include ensuring player representation in governance, imposing age and tenure limits for office-bearers, defining conflict of interest, and extending constitutional governance principles to state associations for transparency and accountability. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a writ petition filed by Rahul Mehra, challenging the election processes and working of various sports federations, including the All India Football Federation (AIFF). The Delhi High Court, in its order dated 31.10.2017, set aside the AIFF's 2016 election results for non-compliance with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (Sports Code). The High Court ap...