Legal Review and Analysis of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors 2025 INSC 1147
1. Heading of the Judgment
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 27606 of 2023), decided on September 24, 2025.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and applies the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. The central statutory provision discussed is:
Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section deals with the "Punishment of advocates for misconduct." It outlines the procedure a State Bar Council must follow when it receives a complaint against an advocate.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellant: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG)
Respondents: In the main case, the respondent was Advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. The judgment also disposes of connected Special Leave Petitions involving another advocate, Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri.
Origin of Dispute: A disciplinary complaint was filed by a third party (Khimji Devji Parmar) against Respondent-Advocate Rajiv Narula, alleging professional misconduct for his role in a decades-old civil suit where consent terms were recorded.
Procedural History: The Judge-Advocate of the BCMG passed an order dated 06.07.2023, referring the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) for inquiry. The respondent-advocate challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, which stayed the disciplinary proceedings. The BCMG appealed to the Supreme Court against this stay order.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The Supreme Court, instead of merely deciding on the interim stay, exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the disciplinary proceedings entirely. The core issue was the validity of initiating misconduct proceedings against an advocate based on the actions of an opposing litigant.
The Central Legal Issue
Whether the disciplinary complaint against the respondent-advocate, who was acting for the opposite party in litigation and had no professional relationship with the complainant, disclosed any prima facie case of "professional or other misconduct" under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings and imposed costs on the BCMG. The Court's reasoning is based on two fundamental pillars:
A. Absence of a Jural Relationship and Frivolous Nature of the Complaint
The Court held that for a disciplinary complaint to be maintainable, there must typically be a jural (professional) relationship between the complainant and the advocate. In this case, it was an admitted fact that the respondent-advocate never represented the complainant or his predecessors. He was the advocate for the opposite party (M/s. Unique Construction) in the original suit.
The Court strongly condemned the practice of a disgruntled litigant filing a misconduct complaint against the adversary's lawyer. It stated that such an action is "highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for." The Court clarified that an advocate's duty is to faithfully represent their client's interests within the bounds of law. Merely because the outcome of the case is adverse to another party does not make the opposing counsel's actions misconduct. The complaint was found to be frivolous and an abuse of the disciplinary process.
B. Mandatory Requirement of a Reasoned Order for Referral to Disciplinary Committee
The Court provided an in-depth analysis of Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. This section states that a State Bar Council must have "reason to believe" that an advocate is guilty of misconduct before it can refer a case to its Disciplinary Committee.
The Court emphasized that the formation of this "reason to believe" is not a mere formality. The referring authority (the Judge-Advocate in this case) must apply its mind to the allegations in the complaint and record, however briefly, its prima facie satisfaction that the actions alleged, if proven, would constitute misconduct.
In this case, the referral order dated 06.07.2023 was found to be "absolutely cryptic and laconic." It merely stated that a case was made out without discussing any of the allegations or explaining how the advocate's actions (which were limited to identifying his client in the consent terms) could amount to misconduct. The Court cited its own precedent in Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1980 Supp SCC 318) to reiterate that recording reasons is a sine qua non (essential condition) for a valid referral. A cryptic order, passed without application of mind, is illegal and vitiates the entire proceeding.
Application to the Connected Case
In the connected matter involving Advocate Geeta Shastri, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to quash the complaint. The allegation was that she committed misconduct by identifying the deponent of an affidavit filed by the opposite party. The Supreme Court held that an advocate, by merely attesting or identifying a deponent, does not become privy to the contents of the affidavit or vouch for its truthfulness. Such an act, in isolation, cannot be construed as misconduct.
5. Final Outcome of the Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
The disciplinary complaint against Advocate Rajiv Narula was not maintainable as it was filed by a stranger to the professional relationship and was based on frivolous allegations.
The order of the BCMG referring the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee was illegal as it was passed without recording any reasons, thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Consequently, Complaint No. 27 of 2023 and all ensuing proceedings were quashed.
The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the BCMG for entertaining the frivolous complaint and dragging the advocate to the Supreme Court. In the connected case, a cost of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the individual complainant and the BCMG.
6. Multiple Choice Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1 As per the Supreme Court's judgment in Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors., what is the essential legal requirement for a State Bar Council to refer a complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961?
a) The Bar Council must immediately refer any complaint received from a member of the public.
b) The Bar Council must have a 'reason to believe' that the advocate is guilty of misconduct, and this satisfaction must be recorded in a reasoned order.
c) The Bar Council must first obtain a conviction against the advocate in a criminal court.
d) The Bar Council can refer a complaint based solely on a preliminary hearing with the complainant.
Answer: b) The Bar Council must have a 'reason to believe' that the advocate is guilty of misconduct, and this satisfaction must be recorded in a reasoned order.
Question 2 In the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-advocate primarily on which of the following grounds?
a) The advocate had already been punished by the Bar Council of India.
b) The complaint was filed by an opposing litigant with whom the advocate had no professional relationship, and the referral order was cryptic and without reasons.
c) The alleged misconduct occurred more than ten years ago and was time-barred.
d) The High Court had already exonerated the advocate in a parallel criminal case.
Answer: b) The complaint was filed by an opposing litigant with whom the advocate had no professional relationship, and the referral order was cryptic and without reasons.
Blog Posts
