Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that no case of professional misconduct was established against practicing advocates whose representation in a case was challenged. The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and directed that there was no illegality in the findings of the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India. The Bench confirmed that advocates are duty bound to act on instructions given by their clients, and it is not part of their duty to verify the truthfulness of their clients’ claims. The Court stated that the appeal had no merit and must be dismissed, with parties directed to bear their respective costs.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Judicial Review Confined to Procedural Errors | High Court Orders Set Aside | Removal with Superannuation Benefits Restored

The proceedings arose from a complaint initially lodged before the Bar Council of Delhi against three practicing lawyers. The complainant alleged that these advocates had committed professional misconduct while representing clients in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The allegation was that the lawyers did not ascertain facts with due diligence before representing their clients and, therefore, failed to comply with the professional standards required under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.

On 06.10.2023, the Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint. The dismissal was based on the reasoning that the complainant had not established any professional relationship between himself and the respondent advocates. The Council further held that whether the allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were false or correct was to be decided by the competent court, not the disciplinary body. The Council concluded that no misconduct was made out against the respondents.

The complainant thereafter filed a Revision Petition before the Bar Council of India under Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961. On 11.11.2024, the Bar Council of India dismissed the Revision Petition, upholding the findings of the Bar Council of Delhi. The BCI held that under the Bar Council of India Rules, it is the duty of an advocate to act on instructions of their client and that the advocate is not required to investigate the veracity of the client’s case before representation. The BCI also observed that an advocate cannot be prosecuted solely because their client’s case is false. It reiterated that no fiduciary relationship of lawyer and client existed between the complainant and the advocates concerned. In support of its reasoning, the BCI relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Swaminathan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, (2014) SCC Online Mad 12777.

The complainant challenged these orders before the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition registered as W.P.(C.) No. 4425/2025. On 15.04.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the Bar Council of India had correctly concluded that there was no professional relationship between the complainant and the advocates and therefore no fiduciary duty owed. The Court also observed that the allegations made by the complainant did not fall within the scope of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The complainant thereafter filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

The Division Bench recorded its consideration of the orders of the Bar Council of Delhi, the Bar Council of India, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Court stated: “on the basis of the contents of the complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, no case of professional misconduct is made out.” It further observed: “if the complaint made by the appellant is to be acted upon and proceeded with for taking action against respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the same will result in undermining the duties which an Advocate owes to his client.”

The Bench addressed the appellant’s contention that advocates should not act as a mere mouthpiece of their clients under Rule 4 of Section I, Chapter 1, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. The Division Bench noted that the Bar Council of India had rightly held that the provision does not mean that an advocate must ascertain the genuineness of a client’s case before representation. The Court observed: “an Advocate is bound by the instructions given to him by his client and it does not form part of his duty to verify the truthfulness or veracity of such instructions.”

The Court also took note of the appellant’s concern regarding alleged perjury and fabrication of documents. The Bench recorded: “in respect of the concern of the appellant regarding some alleged perjury/ fabrication of the documents during the course of the legal proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated by the appellant and are pending and, therefore, in the said proceedings the Court concerned will not take a view as to whether any perjury/ fabrication is committed or not.”

The Court endorsed the reasoning of the learned Single Judge who had previously rejected the appellant’s contentions. It stated: “we find that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to arrive at his conclusions cannot be faulted with.” The Division Bench reiterated that advocates representing the adversary of the appellant did not owe any fiduciary duty to him. The Court noted: “assertions made by the parties before the Court in the form of pleadings or setting up a case are to be decided by the learned Court concerned in the proceedings and not by the lawyers representing the respective parties.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court | ‘For The Love Of Dogs’: Cross FIRs Quashed Between Pet Owners Under Section 528 BNSS | Parties Directed To Contribute To Dog Shelter

In its final order, the Division Bench clearly dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The Court stated: “For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2025 so as to call for any interference in this intra-Court appeal.” It then declared: “The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties to bear their respective costs.”

The judgement conclusively upheld the orders of the Bar Council of Delhi dated 06.10.2023 and the Bar Council of India dated 11.11.2024, as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2025, thereby rejecting all allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent advocates.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Chand Mehra, Appellant in person

For the Respondents: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Chand Mehra v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7102-DB

Case Number: LPA 431/2025 & CM APPL. 41457/2025

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela