Kerala High Court
Biju Gopal vs The Bar Council Of Kerala on 9 March, 2020
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.12968 OF 2010(U)
PETITIONER:
BIJU GOPAL,AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.GOPALA PILLAI,ADVOCATE,
FAMILY LAWYERS,ETTUMANOOR,
RESIDING AT OTTAPLALCKAL,
CHIRALIKADAVU EAST P.O.,KANJIRAPPALLY,
NOW RESIDING AT "NIRMALYAM",ARRA-3,
AMMANKOVIL ROAD,ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.R.SASITH
SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,KOCHI-31,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA,
OPPOSITE TILAK MARG,NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1 BY ADV. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT, SC, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.12968/2010
2
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner is an Advocate. The petitioner started a website containing names of family lawyers. According to the petitioner, the website was not intended as an advertisement for the petitioner or any other lawyer. It was intended only to disseminate information regarding family lawyers. The information so disseminated contained names of several Advocates who fall in the category of family lawyers. However the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice from the Bar Council of Kerala initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner invoking Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging that the publication and launching of the web site amounts violation of Rule 36 (Section IV) of the Bar Council of India Rules which tantamounts to professional and other misconduct.
2. In Ext.P4, the Secretary to the Bar Council of Kerala stated that the petitioner has launched a website WP(C)No.12968/2010 3 soliciting professional work in the field of family court matters. The launching was also published in newspapers. The said act of the petitioner is a clear violation of Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply to the notice. However by Ext.P7 notice, the petitioner was directed to be present in a disciplinary enquiry to be conducted by the Disciplinary Committee No.III of the Bar Council of Kerala.
3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent Bar Council of Kerala. I have also heard Sri. Rajit, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India.
4. Going through the pleadings in the case, it is seen that the Bar Council of India as per Ext.P1, passed a resolution bringing about an amendment to Rule 36 to the effect that the Bar Council of India Rules will not stand in the WP(C)No.12968/2010 4 way of Advocates furnishing website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India. Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such Advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
5. In view of the amendment to the Rules brought about by the Bar Council of India as per Resolution No.50/2008 as indicated in Ext.P1, the petitioner has to make an application to the Bar Council of India before publishing any website containing information, as indicated in Ext.P1. The petitioner's case is that he has made an application to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Kerala in this regard, though the applications submitted may not be sufficient in contents.
6. In the circumstances, it is only just and proper to WP(C)No.12968/2010 5 give an opportunity to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the Bar Council of India in the manner prescribed by the Bar Council of India, for establishing/ continuing the website of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, if the petitioner makes an application before the Bar Council of India within a period of one month, the Bar Council of India shall consider that application and pass appropriate orders, stipulating such conditions as are necessary. The petitioner will be free to continue with the operation of his website in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Bar Council of India. Till the Bar Council of India passes orders on the application filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings as per Exts.P4, P6 and P7 will stand deferred.
It is made clear that if the petitioner is not making any application to the Bar Council of India within a period of one month as indicated above with intimation to the Bar Council WP(C)No.12968/2010 6 of Kerala, the Bar Council of Kerala will be at liberty to proceed with Exts.P4, P6 and P7. The Bar Council of India shall pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner within a period of six months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd WP(C)No.12968/2010 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SENT TO THE SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND THE KERALA BAR COUNCIL.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WEBSITE HOISTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF FAMILY LAWYERS.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA BY A COMMUNICATION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE A NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA ON 22.11.2009.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER THEREUPON SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE ON 17.1.2010 THE PETITIONER HAD FILED A FURTHER OBJECTION.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.4.2010.