AJITSLNH ARJUNSLNH GOHLL versus BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 06-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 984 
AJITSlNH ARJUNSlNH GOHlL 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8307 of2015) 
APR1L06,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.[ 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
s.36B(l) - Complaint against Advocate -
Transfer of 
disciplinary proceedings, to the Bar Council of Jndia (BCJ) ,fi-om 
the State Bar Council as per mandate enshrined uls.36B(l)- Whether 
the BCJ, instead of enquiring into the complaint and adjudicating 
thereon, can send it back to the State Bar Council with direction to 
decide the controversy within a stipulated time - Held: When the 
language employed u/s. 36B(l) and s.36 are read in juxtaposition, 
it is clear that the legislature desired that the disciplinary 
proceedings are to be put to an end within a particular time frame 
by the State Bar Council and if that is not done, the whole thing 
gets transferred to the BCJ, which is obliged to cause an enquily -
Once original jurisdiction to deal with complaint stands transferred 
to the BCJ, it cannot be said that disposal by BCJ would include 
remand - The legislature never intended either .fi·om the perspective 
of the complainant or from the delinquent advocate that a complaint 
transferred to BCJ, be again sent back to the State Bar Council. 
s.36B(l) and s.37 - Distinction between - Held: BCJ exercises 
appellate jurisdiction u/s.37 and original jurisdiction u/s.36B(l) -
While exercising appellate jurisdiction uls.37, the BCJ can remand 
the matter to the State Bar Council whereas, uls.36B(l) original 
jurisdiction to deal with complaint stands transferred to the BCJ 
thus, it cannot be remanded back to State Bar Council - BCJ, while 
exercising original jurisdiction on transfer of a complaint, cannot 
exercise appellate jurisdiction. 
Supreme Court- Directions - Pei:formance ()f duty by statutOIJ' 
body - DisciplinalJ' authority of State Bar Councils found to be not 
disposing of complaints within stipulated period -
Held: 
Responsibility to deal with the disciplinary proceedings is cast on 
H 
984 
AJTTSINH ARJUNSINH GOHTL v. BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT 985 
the State Bar Council, which constitutes its disciplinmy committee -
A 
A statutory authority is obliged to constantly remind itself that the 
mandate of the statute is expediency and the stipulation of" time is 
mandatory - State Bar Councils asked to take periodical stock of 
cases with regard to the progress of the Disciplinmy committee and 
find out the cause of delay and guide themselves to act with 
expediency so that the Councils, as statutory bodies, do their duty 
B 
as commanded under the Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes - On the text and context -
Discussed. 
Advocates - Nobility of legal profession - Held: Ah advocate 
stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants - He has a paramount 
duty to his client and client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere 
and honest treatment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. To understand the language employed in a 
statutory provision, stress has to be given on textual 
interpretation that would match context and further to explore 
the intention of the legislature. The words have to be understood 
regard being had to the purpose behind it and hence, the concern 
with the intention is basically to decipher the meaning of the word 
that the legislature has placed on it. When the language employed 
under Section 36B(l) and Section 36 arc read in juxtaposition, 
there remains no scintilla of doubt that the legislature desired 
that the disciplinary proceedings are to be put to an end within a 
particular time frame by the State Bar Council and if that is not 
done, the whole thing gets transferred to the BCI, which is obliged 
to cause an enquiry. Thus understood, there can be no trace of 
doubt that the original jurisdiction to deal with the complaint stands 
transferred to the BGI. Once the original jurisdiction is 
transferred, to rely upon the language that the BCI may dispose 
of would include any manner of disposal which would include a 
remand, cannot be thought of. That is neither the legislative 
intendment nor the legislative purpose. The legislature never 
intended a complaint made against an Advocate either from the 
perspective of the complainant or from the delinquent to be 
transferred to BCI, again to be sent back. !Paras 23, 271 1996-E; 
998-D-FJ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
986 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 
2.1 Once a complaint is made by a litigant, it has 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.