Bar Council has no power to suspend licence of an advocate: HC

The high court bench of justice Alka Sarin gave this ruling while quashing the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana’s August 14 order, wherein the licence of Bharat Bhushan Verma, former president of Ludhiana District Bar Association, was suspended

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that a Bar council does not have power to take punitive action against a lawyer without the complaint being referred to a disciplinary committee.

The high court bench of justice Alka Sarin gave this ruling while quashing the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH)’s August 14 order, wherein the licence of Bharat Bhushan Verma, former president of Ludhiana District Bar Association, was suspended for his alleged Facebook posts against the council’s executive members.

“The provisions of the 1961 Act (Advocates Act, 1961) and the BCI (Bar Council of India) Rules do not bestow power on the State Bar Council to suspend the licence to practise of an advocate while referring the complaint against him to its disciplinary committee,” the bench held.

On August 4, a note complaining about Verma’s Facebook posts was put up by a member. The BCPH chairman, acting on it, issued a show-cause notice to Verma via WhatsApp and speed post. It was claimed as he did not respond to the notice, on August 14, his licence was suspended and the matter referred to the disciplinary committee. The committee initiated proceedings against him on August 21.

Verma had argued that the decision was without jurisdiction and in gross violation of all principles of natural justice. It was argued that matter should have been referred to the disciplinary committee and the Bar Council had no power to pass an interim order.

Before the court, it came to light that the show-cause notice was sent through WhatsApp but another condition of also delivering it by email was not complied with. In the speed post, the address was incomplete. Hence, Verma could not present his side.

“An order suspending the licence to practice of an advocate operates to his prejudice not only in praesenti (at the present time) but also puts a taint which attaches far beyond and may well spell the death knell of his professional career which can be described as a civil death,” the bench observed.

The bench further said there is no specific or implied power conferred on a State Bar Council under the 1961 Act to take punitive action against an advocate while simultaneously referring a complaint against him to the disciplinary committee. It has to justify exercise of its powers within the four corners of the statute which has created it, the bench added while quashing all proceedings against the lawyer with a liberty to BCPH to initiate them afresh.