Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court has directed the the Bar Council of India to finally dispose of the transferred complaints filed against Advocates, expeditiously but not later than one year, for which the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI may hold circuit hearings.

Moreover, the respective State Bar Councils have also been asked to decide and dispose of the complaint(s) received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna while talking about transfer of cases from the state bar councils to the BCI said that only in exceptional case and for the reasons to be recorded where it is found that for valid reasons, the proceedings could not be completed within the period stipulated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, then and then only such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India .

It added that on such transfer the Bar Council of India shall also dispose of the such transferred proceedings/complaints within a period of one year from receipt of such transferred proceedings.

These observations were made by the top court while hearing an appeal filed by K. Anjinappa against the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India by which the said Committee had dismissed the complaint filed by him against his Advocate on the ground of professional misconduct.

Originally, the said complaint was filed before the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh. Though under the Advocates Act, the State Bar Council was duty bound to dispose of the complaint expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of receipt of complaint, the State Bar Council did not dispose of the said complaint. Therefore, the said complaint came to be transferred to the Bar Council of India as per Section 36B of the Advocates Act.

In the impugned order, it was noted that the complaint was dismissed by the BCI on the ground that the complaint was filed by two complainants, namely, Shri K. Anjinappa (the appellant herein) and one Shri S. Lakshmi Narayana, however, the said complaint was not signed by Narayana.

While dealing with this case, the Court had called upon the BCI to place on record that in how many cases during the last five years the complaints were transferred from the concerned State Bar Council(s) to BCI and in how many cases the transferred complaints/cases are decided and disposed of.

Looking at the data provided by the BCI which stated that more than 1200 complaints were pending, the Court remarked that it was the duty of the Councils to improve its functioning on the disciplinary side.

Noting that 1273 complaints were pending before the BCI, the Court said that it is just and necessary that a mechanism be found for disposal of the said complaints in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

"For an efficient and quick disposal of the complaints by the Bar Council of India vis-à-vis those complaints which have been transferred to it as per section 36B of the Act, the Bar Council of India may consider empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates and/or retired judicial officers to act as Inquiry Officers where an inquiry would be necessitated. On such inquiry being concluded the report of the Inquiry Officers could be received by the Bar Council of India. On consideration 24 of the said inquiry report, the Bar Council of India could pass appropriate orders on the complaint", it added.

BCI has also been asked to issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to conclude the proceedings from the complaints filed against the advocates within a period of one year since the intention of the Parliament appears to be to decide on the said complaint within the said period which is a reasonable period.

Talking about the object and purpose of section 36B of the Act, the Court said that the provision did not aim to encourage delay in the disposal of the complaint so as to enable the complaints to be transferred to the BCI by operation of law and thereby increase the burden on the All India body.

"In fact, section 36B of the Act mandates that there should be no tardiness by the State Bar Council in completion of the proceedings on the complaints received by them within a period of one year as stated in the said provision....", noted the Bench.

As far as the present case is concerned, it was reported that the complaint had been disposed of by the State Bar Council by order dated in March 2017 against which a revision application is pending before the Bar Council of India.

In that view of the matter, the Could held that no further order was required and went on to dispose of the appeal.

Cause Title: K. Anjinappa v K.C. Krishna Reddy and Anr.