Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Charanjeet Singh Chnderpal vs Vasant D. Salunkhe on 18 July, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
1
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 309/2022 in C.A. No. 7478/2019
CHARANJEET SINGH CHNDERPAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VASANT D. SALUNKHE & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION and IA No.58038/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 95557/2022 – Application for Impleadment
IA No. 95562/2022 – Application for Directions
Date : 18-07-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Rajput, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Sarode, Adv.
Ms. Shaista Hadi, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Vide our judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7478 of 2019, after taking into consideration Section 35 and Section 36B of the Advocates Act, we directed the Bar Council of India (“BCI” for short) to issue appropriate directions to the concerned State Bar Councils to decide and dispose of the complaints within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such complaints/proceedings and on failure to dispose of the same within a period of one year, all such complaints be transferred to Signature Not Verified BCI for its decision.
Digitally signed by RNatarajan Date: 2022.07.19 17:33:42 IST Reason:
This Court passed a detailed judgment and order/directions directing the BCI to see to it that all pending complaints pending 2 before the concerned State Bar Councils pending since more than one year be transferred to the BCI for its decision considering Section 36B of the Advocates Act. Therefore, as such, the BCI was required to finally decide and dispose of the transferred complaints. A further report, pursuant to our earlier order dated 20.05.2022, on the compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 passed in C.A. No. 7478 of 2019, has been filed on behalf of the BCI. In para 8, it is stated as under:-
“8. Regarding the 1273 transferred cases which were pending with the deponent at the time of passing of the judgment dated 17.12.2021, the deponent has sent back a total of 610 transfer case files out of 1273 and other 229 old transfer case files to the State Bar Councils for concluding the evidence by the inquiry officer appointed by the State Bar Councils. The transfer cases, where evidence are completed and which are pending for order such cases are being heard by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India for passing final order. It is submitted that Ld. Chairman of the Bar Council of India vide an order dated 23.06.2022 has directed the deponent’s office to send back all transfer cases which have been received by the Bar Council of India till 17.12.2021 i.e. the date of order of Hon’ble Apex Court to the concerned State Bar Council for inquiry by the inquiry officer wit a clear direction/request to conclude the inquiry with a period of three months. Copy of order dated 23.6.2022 issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India is annexed herewith as Annexure A-7. (At page
126). A detailed chart of the matters sent back to the respective State Bar Councils is annexed herewith as Annexure A-8 (At page 127) This was done with a view to expedite the disposal of the cases as it would be quicker if the cases were disposed of by the respective State Bar Councils where the Advocate concerned and in most cases the complainant is located.” Re-transferring of 610 plus 229 transferred cases again to the concerned State Bar Councils is in teeth of our earlier judgment 3 and order and the directions issued by this Court on 17.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7478 of 2019. Once the cases were transferred to the BCI, in exercise of powers under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, in that case, all those transferred cases were required to be disposed of by the BCI and that too within the stipulated time, stated in our earlier judgment and order/directions.
Those transferred cases could not have been and/or ought not to have been again transferred to the concerned State Bar Councils. It is to be noted that because the concerned State Bar Councils failed to perform their statutory duty cast under the provisions of Section 35 of the Advocates Act and did not decide the complaints, which they were required to decide within a period of one year, Section 36B of the Advocates Act would come into play and all those cases were required to be transferred to the BCI so that subsequently on transfer the BCI shall have to decide and dispose of those transferred cases. Therefore, by not deciding the transferred cases and re-transferring again to the concerned State Bar Councils, it can be seen that the BCI has failed to perform its statutory duty cast under the Advocates Act and, more particularly, under Section 36B of the Advocates Act.
From the report, it appears that, by a general Order dated 23.06.2022, the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI has observed that all the transferred cases be sent back to the State Bar Councils for inquiry by Inquiry Officers with a clear direction/request to conclude the inquiries within a period of three months. At this stage, it is required to be noted that there is no power of re- transferring the cases again to the State Bar Councils under any of 4 the provisions of the Advocates Act. Once the cases are transferred to the BCI in exercise of powers under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, the same have to be disposed of by the BCI alone. Therefore, re-transfer of cases again to the concerned State Bar Councils is not supported by any statutory provisions and/or even the same can be said to be contrary to our directions issued earlier. At this stage, Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BCI, has stated that only with a view to see that the pending complaints are disposed of at the earliest, the cases have been re-transferred to the concerned State Bar Councils. The intention may be good but it is not supported by any statutory provisions. Even such an action, as observed hereinabove, is contrary to our directions issued by this Court. Be that as it may, at this stage, Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the BCI, prays for a week’s time to take corrective measures by the BCI and to see to it that all cases which are now again transferred to the State Bar Councils are again re- transferred to the BCI so that further modalities of inquiry can be worked out by directing to see that the inquiry officers are appointed through the concerned State Bar Councils and the evidence is recorded and thereafter the entire case is transferred along the evidence/inquiry report so that the same can be finally decided and disposed of by the BCI.
Put up on 01.08.2022.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR