LexADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI versus H. M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI
v.
H. M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF
MAHARASHTRA,BOMBAY
August 21, 1970
863
[M. HmAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, G. .l(. MITTER,
c. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
A.dvocatts Act (25 of 1%1) s. 37--,:ferson aggrieved', meanmg OJ-
Advocate-General of State taking part in proceedings before Disciplinnry
Committee of Bar Council-If 'person aggrieved' with a right of appeal.
The appellant wa~ an advocate from Maharashtra. He was convicted
by a Summttry Court in London on a charg~ of pilfering from a Depart-
mental Store and was sentenced to pay a fine. The State Bar Council
chlled upon him sou motu to show cause why he should
not be held
guilty of misconduct. lie submitted his explanation and the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council was satisfied that there was no reason for
holding him guilty of
profession~ misconduct. The Advocate-Genen.l
of the State who was sent a noti~ of tile proceedings as required by
s. 35(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and had appeared before the Discip-.
Jinary Committee, tiled an appeal tp the Bar Council of India
un~r
s. 37 of the Act, under which, any 'person aggrie\·ed by an order of the
Disciplinary Committe~: of the StatQ Bar Council mad~ under s. 35 of
the Act, may prefer an appeal to thl: Bar Council of India. The appel~
!ant objected that the Advocate-Gene~al had no locus standi to file the
appeal. The objection was overruled by the Disciplinary Committee of
tbe Bar Council of India and the appellant was found guilty of profes-
sional misconduct.
·
In appeal to this Court, on the question of the
compett:u~y of the
Advocate-General to file the appeal under s. 37.
HELD : (Per Jiidayatullah, C.J.,
Shelat and
Mitter,
JJ.)
The
Advocate-General Was not 'a person aggrieved' within the meaning of
.s. 37 and therefore, the appeal filed by him was incompetent and hence,
the finding of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India
should be set aside. [887 H; 904 E)
(Per Hidayatullah C.J.) (1) The expression 'person aggrieved' must
be construed by reference to the context of the enactment in which it
appears and all the circumstances.
Under the Act, disciplinary proceed-
iags before a State Bar Council commence on a complaint to it or suo
mtJtu and are referred to its Disciplinarr. Committee. The Disciplinary
Committee can reject the matter summartly; but if it proceeds to hear it
further, notice thereof is sent to the 6oncemed advocate and to the
Advocate.{Jeneral of the State.
The
Advocate-General
may
appear
personally or by counsel. If the Disciplinary Committee after giving the
A,lh-ocate and the Advocate-General an opportunity to be heard holds
that the Advocate is not guilty of any misconduct it makes an order
::ither dismissing the complaint, or where the pro:eeding was started by
the Bar Council makes an order that the matter may be filed.
If it
finds the advocate guilty it may either reprimand the advocate or suspend
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
thi advocate from practice for a specified period or remove his name from
the roll of Advocates.
From the decision of the Disciplinary Committee
of the State Bar Council an appeal lies to the Bar Council of India at
the instance of 'a person aggrieved'. The appeal is heard by the Disci-
pHnary Committee of the Bar Council of India and from its decision an
app-:al lies to this Court. ([884 E-H; 885 A-B]
(a) In these proceedings before the disciplinary committee the
Ad\·ocate-General is not in the nature of a party having independent rights
which he can claim nor is ,be injured by the decision.
The decision
doe5 not deny him 1>nything nor does it ask him to do anything,
He
j; also not intended to be bound by the decision. He does not represent
the Bar nor has he a right to speak on behalf the body of the advocates.
Such a privilege is neither expressly conferred on him nor can it be
implied from the provisions of the Act. [885 C-D; 886 A-B]
(b) In the State Bar Councils (except in Delhi), the Advocate-General
o( the State is an e.x-offl.cio member, but his functions are not different
from those of other members.
He has a right of pre-aud·ience, but the
Admcatcs Act does not confer any other right on him.
W,hen the Com-
nittee considers in limini to decide whether the matter should be pro-
c:;-ded with at all. the Advocate General's presence is not considered
necessary. Therefore, the Advocate-General is nExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.