The recent decision by the Calcutta High Court underscores that the formation of an opinion by a State Bar Council regarding alleged misconduct by an advocate does not automatically restrict the authority of the Disciplinary Committee (DC) in assessing the complaint's maintainability. The court's ruling clarified that the DC retains the power to scrutinize the validity of a complaint, even if the State Bar Council believes the advocate may be guilty of professional misconduct.
The court highlighted instances where the State Bar Council might suspect misconduct, but upon DC review, the complaint may be deemed non-maintainable, lacking a clear violation of law or professional ethics. The case in question involved a petitioner who filed a complaint with the West Bengal State Bar Council in November 2022 against private respondents. The petitioner contended that, as per Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961, the cutoff for complaint disposal was one year from receipt, and any delay would trigger automatic transfer to the Bar Council of India.
The petitioner argued that the statutory one-year period had elapsed, necessitating a transfer to the Bar Council of India, and contended that orders issued by the State Bar Council after the cutoff date were legally flawed. The Council had referred the matter to the DC to assess the complaint's maintainability, raising concerns about the DC's jurisdiction to decide on such matters.
The petitioner's counsel invoked Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, arguing that a reference to the DC implied the State Bar Council's preliminary adjudication on maintainability based on a "reason to believe" that the accused advocate might be guilty of misconduct. In contrast, the respondents' counsel asserted that the one-year period commenced upon the DC's receipt of the complaint in August 2023, not when the State Bar Council received it in November 2022.
The respondents argued that without jurisdictional facts constituting a complaint under Section 35, the petitioner's complaint should be dismissed as non-maintainable. They emphasized the DC's authority to decide maintainability by examining whether jurisdictional facts were present in the complaint.
After considering both arguments, the court examined the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules. It determined that Section 36B(1) mandated the DC, not the Bar Council, to dispose of complaints under Section 35 within one year from receipt. The court concluded that the relevant date for the one-year period was the State Bar Council's reference to the DC in August 2023.
Regarding the DC's authority to decide maintainability, the court interpreted the Advocates Act and BCI rules to affirm that the DC could independently assess complaints, including the issue of maintainability, irrespective of the State Bar Council's opinion. The court clarified that the State Bar Council's belief in the advocate's misconduct did not constrain the DC's ability to examine the complaint's viability.
Consequently, the court upheld the State Bar Council's decision to refer the matter to the DC and dismissed the petition. It emphasized that the DC's jurisdiction would persist only until the expiration of the one-year statutory period under Section 36B. This ruling establishes that the DC can autonomously assess complaint validity, ensuring a comprehensive examination of jurisdictional facts and maintainability beyond the State Bar Council's initial opinion.
TAGS: Calcutta High Court State Bar Council Disciplinary Committee alleged misconduct complaint maintainability
