This appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 challenged an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India that had suspended the appellant-advocate from practice for a period of one year. The dispute stemmed from a complaint lodged on August 30, 2005, alleging that the appellant—who was opposing counsel in a Labour Court matter—physically assaulted, abused, and threatened the respondent-complainant inside the court premises toilet following the dismissal of the respondent’s application. Although the Supreme Court noted that the appellant was denied a proper opportunity of hearing when his adjournment request was rejected by the Bar Council of India, the Court declined to remand the matter back due to the long lapse of 21 years since the initial complaint.
- Nature of Proceedings: An appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, challenging the Bar Council of India’s order in Tr. Case No. 118 of 2008.
- Core Allegations: The respondent filed a complaint alleging that the appellant (the opposing lawyer in a Labour Court case) caught him by the collar, beat him up, abused him, and threatened to kill him inside the Karkardooma Court premises toilet, while also forcing him to withdraw police complaints.
- Procedural History:
- The complaint was initially dismissed on October 24, 2009, on the premise that the appellant was opposing counsel rather than the complainant’s own lawyer, meaning no professional misconduct case was made out.
- This dismissal was later recalled via a review petition on July 9, 2011, and notices were issued.
- On July 7, 2012, the Bar Council of India refused the appellant’s request for an adjournment and instantly passed an order suspending him from practice for one year.
- Supreme Court’s Observations:
- The Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant was not afforded a proper hearing when his adjournment prayer was summarily rejected on July 7, 2012.
- However, the Court opted against remanding the matter back because approximately 21 years had already passed since the complaint was first submitted to the Bar Council of Delhi.
- The Court also highlighted that since the appellant was not the complainant’s counsel, the core allegations did not concern direct court proceeding duties, but rather an incident within the court premises for which police complaints had already been filed.
- Final Outcome: The civil appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court, keeping the long-standing litigation to a close.
2026 INSC 791
Sudhendu Prakash Gautam v. S.L. Chaudhary (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)
