Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Thursday (January 29) set aside the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee’s decision that had found an advocate guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a monetary penalty linked to possible suspension. The Court was dealing with a client’s complaint alleging lack of diligence and non-appearance, said to have contributed to the dismissal of a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. During the pendency of the disciplinary case, the client filed a sworn statement withdrawing the allegations and recording satisfaction with the advocate’s services. The Bench held that once the complainant clearly withdrew the complaint and affirmed satisfaction, the foundation for continuing disciplinary proceedings no longer remained, making the finding of misconduct unsustainable.

The appeal arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against an advocate in connection with his professional engagement in a criminal matter relating to the quashing of an FIR. The complainant had engaged the advocate to seek quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the accused and the complainant. The High Court initially allowed the quashing petition subject to payment of costs. Due to non-deposit of costs within the stipulated period, the quashing order was recalled and the petition dismissed for want of prosecution.

Also Read: Principal Employers Must Prefer Displaced Contract Workers When Hiring Regular Workmen; Supreme Court

Subsequently, on an application filed by the advocate, the High Court restored the quashing petition and enhanced the costs. During this period, the complainant lodged a complaint before the State Bar Council alleging professional negligence on the part of the advocate. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the dispute between the advocate and the complainant was amicably resolved. The High Court later waived the enhanced costs and ultimately quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

The complainant thereafter submitted a sworn affidavit before the State Bar Council stating that the complaint had been filed due to a misunderstanding regarding costs, expressing satisfaction with the advocate’s services, and seeking withdrawal of the complaint. As the proceedings before the State Bar Council were not concluded within the statutory period, the matter stood transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, which proceeded to adjudicate the complaint and imposed a monetary penalty with a conditional suspension. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that “while the disciplinary proceedings were still pending before the State Bar Council, the respondent-complainant presented a duly sworn affidavit dated 15th December, 2022… wherein he categorically stated that he had approached the State Bar Council out of frustration on account of the imposition of costs”. It recorded that “he clarified that the grievance was not attributable to any professional lapse on the part of the appellant–advocate”.

The Court further noted that “the respondent-complainant further stated that the appellant-advocate had thereafter resolved the issue, pursuant to which the cost amount was reduced… which stood duly deposited” and that “the criminal proceedings… were ultimately quashed by the High Court”. The Court recorded that “the respondent–complainant unequivocally desired that he did not wish to pursue the disciplinary complaint against the appellant-advocate any further”.

On examining the impugned order, the Court observed that “the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI completely glossed over the aforesaid material and vital aspect while holding the appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct”. It stated that “the Committee failed to appreciate that the substratum of the complaint had ceased to exist once the dispute was amicably resolved”. The Court noted that “the impugned judgment neither adverts to the affidavit filed by the respondent-complainant nor deals with the categorical withdrawal of allegations”.

The Court also observed that “the impugned judgment does not reflect that any evidence was led by the respondent-complainant to substantiate the allegations set out in the complaint”. It recorded that “the appellant-advocate has been held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations” and that this was done “without the complainant being examined on oath and without affording the appellant-advocate the indefeasible right of cross-examination”.

Considering the overall circumstances, the Court stated that “the genesis of the dispute was a mere misunderstanding regarding the deposit of costs which stood resolved during the pendency of the proceedings” and that “Once the respondent complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the appellant-advocate and categorically sought to withdraw the complaint, the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist. In these circumstances, the order holding appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct is considered wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law.”

Also Read: High Courts Must Avoid Routine Early-Disposal Directions And Assess Urgency; Madras High Court

The Court directed that “the impugned judgment dated 4th April, 2025 is hereby set aside”. and “the appeal is allowed accordingly”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Thakur, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Gupta, AOR

Case Title: Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 94
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta