SHAMBHU RAM YADA V versus HANUMAN DAS KHATRY

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 25-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAMBHU RAM Y ADA V 
A 
v. 
HANUMAN DAS KHATRY 
JULY 26, 200 I 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
B 
Advocates Act, 1961 : 
Section 35-Misconduct-Advocate wrote a letter to his client demanding 
Rs. 10,000 for bribing the Presiding Judge to obtain orders in his favour- C 
State Bar Council suspended the Advocate from practice for a period of two 
years-But the Bar Council of India directed removal of the Advocate from 
the roll of Advocates-On review Bar Council of India reduced the punishment 
to one of reprimand-Justification of-Held: The Advocate is guilty of serious 
misconduct-Hence, punishment of permanent debarment rightly imposed- D 
Reduction in punishment-Not justified 
Section 44-Review of orders-Scope and ambit of-Held, the power of 
review does not empower a Disciplinary Committee to take a different view of 
the same set of facts while modifj;ing the earlier order passed by another 
Disciplinary Committee. 
E 
Section 42-Disciplianry Committees of Bar Councils-Powers and 
duties-Importance of-Explained and emphasised. 
legal Profession-Members of-Duties and responsibilities-Explained 
and reiteratf!d. 
The appellant filed a complaint before the State Bar Council against 
the respondent-Advocate stating that the respondent wrote a letter to his client 
demanding a sum of Rs. I 0,000 for payment as bribe to the Presiding Judge 
F 
to obtain orders in his favour. The State Bar Council held the respondent G 
guilty of misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and 
suspended him from practice for a period of two years. But the Disciplinary 
Committee of the Bar Council of India enhanced the punishment and directed 
that the name of the respondent be struck off from the roll of Advocates. The 
review petition filed by the respondent under Section 44 of the Act was allowed 
29 
H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A and the earlier order was substituted with one reprimanding the respondent 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Legal profession is not a trade or business. It is a noble 
B profession. Members belonging to this profession have not to encourage 
dishonesty and corruption but have to strive to secure justice to their clients 
if it is legally possible. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends 
upon the manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves. 
There is a heavy responsibility on those on whom duty has been vested under 
C the Advocates Act, 1961 to take disciplinary action when the credibility and 
reputation of the profession comes under a clout on account of acts of omission 
and commission by any member of the profession. [31-G] 
2. Original order of removal of the respondent from the roll of 
Advocates has been reviewed on non-existent grounds. All the factors taken 
D into consideration in the impugned order were already on record and were 
considered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India when 
it passed the original order. The power of review has not been exercised by 
applying well-settled principles governing the exercise of such power. The 
earlier order had taken into consideration all relevant factors for coming to 
the conclusion that the respondent-Advocate was totally unfit to be a lawyer 
E and punishment lesser than debarring him permanently cannot be imposed. 
The exercise of power of review does not empower a Disciplinary Committee 
to modify the earlier order passed by another Disciplinary Committee taking 
a different view of the same set of facts. [34-D-H; 35-A[ 
3.1. Members of the legal profession are officers of the court. Besides 
F courts, they also owt: a duty to the society, which has a vital public interest in 
the due administration of justice. The said public interest is required to be 
protected by those on whom the power has been entrusted to take disciplinary 
action. The disciplinary bodies are guardians of the due administration of 
justice. They have requisite power and rather a duty while supervising the 
G conduct of the members of the legal profession, to inflict appropriate penalty 
' when members are found to be guilty of misconduct. Considering the nature 
of the misconduct, the penalty of permanent debarment had been imposed 
on the respondent, which without any valid ground has been modified in 
exercise of power of review. (35-D[ 
H 
3.2. It is the duty of Bar Councils to ensure that the lawyers adhere to 
... 
'< 
S.R. YADAV v. H.D. KHA

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