Legal Review and Analysis of Monty Goyal vs Navrang Singh 2026 INSC 94
Synopsis
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 29, 2026, allowed an appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and set aside the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India which had held the appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct. The Court held that once the complainant had voluntarily withdrawn the complaint by way of a sworn affidavit expressing satisfaction with the advocate’s services and the dispute stood resolved, the very foundation of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist. The Court further found the disciplinary inquiry procedurally flawed due to lack of evidence and denial of the right to cross-examination.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: Monty Goyal vs. Navrang Singh
Citation: 2026 INSC 94
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Nature of Bench: Division Bench (not a Constitutional Bench)
Civil Appeal No.: 77 of 2026
Appeal Under: Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961
2. Legal Framework
Governing Statute: Advocates Act, 1961
Key Provisions:
Section 35: Complaint against advocates for professional misconduct.
Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme Court against orders of the Bar Council of India.Legal Principles Involved:
Principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Right to cross-examination in quasi-judicial inquiries.
Effect of withdrawal of complaint on pending disciplinary proceedings.Related Precedents:
While not explicitly cited, the judgment aligns with settled law that disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained in the absence of substantive evidence and after the complainant has unequivocally withdrawn allegations.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The respondent (Navrang Singh) was an accused in FIR No. 150/2018. A compromise was reached, and the appellant-advocate (Monty Goyal) was engaged to file a quashing petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The High Court quashed the FIR subject to payment of costs. Due to non-deposit of costs within time, the quashing petition was dismissed.
The advocate filed a recall application; the High Court restored the petition but enhanced costs.
The respondent filed a misconduct complaint before the State Bar Council alleging negligence.
During pendency, the parties settled; costs were reduced and deposited. The High Court finally quashed the FIR.
The respondent filed a sworn affidavit before the State Bar Council withdrawing the complaint, stating satisfaction with the advocate’s services.
The matter was transferred to the Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee, which ignored the affidavit, held the advocate guilty, and imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh with a threat of suspension.
The advocate appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Issues Before the Court
Whether the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India erred in holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct despite the complainant’s sworn affidavit withdrawing the complaint and expressing satisfaction.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities, including lack of evidence and denial of the right to cross-examination.
Whether the substratum of the disciplinary complaint survived after an amicable settlement between the parties.
5. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held:
Once the complainant files a sworn affidavit withdrawing the complaint and acknowledging resolution of the dispute, the very foundation of disciplinary proceedings disappears.
Disciplinary authorities must consider such affidavits and cannot proceed mechanically.
A finding of professional misconduct cannot be based solely on bald allegations without substantive evidence, examination of the complainant on oath, and opportunity for cross-examination.
The Disciplinary Committee’s failure to consider the affidavit and procedural lapses rendered its order legally unsustainable.
6. Legal Principles Established or Reiterated
Withdrawal of Complaint: A voluntary and unequivocal withdrawal of a disciplinary complaint by the complainant, especially when accompanied by a settlement, vitiates the proceedings.
Evidentiary Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings: Allegations must be proved through proper evidence; mere assertions in a complaint are insufficient.
Right to Cross-Examination: The advocate facing charges must be afforded the right to cross-examine the complainant, failing which the inquiry is flawed.
Role of Disciplinary Committees: They must act judiciously, consider all relevant material, and cannot ignore vital documents like withdrawal affidavits.
7. Analysis and Examination by the Supreme Court
The Court conducted a thorough review:
a. Examination of the Affidavit of Withdrawal:
The Court noted the sworn affidavit dated December 15, 2022, wherein the complainant stated the dispute arose from a misunderstanding, praised the advocate’s efforts, and sought unconditional withdrawal of the complaint.
The Disciplinary Committee’s failure to even refer to this affidavit was deemed a serious omission.
b. Procedural Deficiencies:
The Committee proceeded without examining the complainant on oath.
No opportunity for cross-examination was given to the advocate, violating principles of natural justice.
c. Substratum of the Complaint:
The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are grounded in the existence of a genuine grievance. Once the grievance is resolved and withdrawn, the proceedings lose their legitimacy.
d. Appreciation of Evidence:
The Court found no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations of negligence or misconduct beyond the initial complaint, which was later retracted.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
The judgment reinforces the importance of complainant-driven disciplinary mechanisms in professional misconduct cases. Where the complainant no longer wishes to proceed, especially after settlement, continuing proceedings serves no purpose.
It underscores that disciplinary bodies must adhere to basic procedural fairness, including the right to cross-examine.
The ruling may discourage frivolous or vindictive complaints once settlements are reached, promoting amicable resolutions.
Final Outcome:
The appeal was allowed.
The impugned judgment of the Disciplinary Committee dated April 4, 2025, was set aside.
The appellant-advocate was exonerated from the charges of professional misconduct.
No costs were awarded.
9. (MCQs)
1. Under which section of the Advocates Act, 1961, was the appeal filed before the Supreme Court in Monty Goyal vs. Navrang Singh?
a) Section 35
b) Section 36
c) Section 37
d) Section 38
2. What was the key reason the Supreme Court set aside the Disciplinary Committee’s order?
a) The advocate had already been punished by the High Court.
b) The complainant had withdrawn the complaint via a sworn affidavit, and the dispute was resolved.
c) The Disciplinary Committee lacked jurisdiction.
d) The advocate was not given a notice.
3. Which legal principle was violated by the Disciplinary Committee according to the Supreme Court?
a) Principle of double jeopardy
b) Principle of res judicata
c) Principle of natural justice, specifically the right to cross-examination
d) Principle of estoppel
4. What is the effect of a complainant filing a sworn affidavit withdrawing a misconduct complaint during pending disciplinary proceedings?
a) It automatically terminates the proceedings.
b) It must be considered by the disciplinary authority, and if genuine, the substratum of the proceedings may cease.
c) It has no legal value.
d) It transfers the case to another committee.