BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. M V DABHOLKAR
LAWS(SC)-1975-10-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 03,1975

BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
M.V.DABHOLKAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VISHRAM SINGH RAGHUBANSHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2011-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR BAID VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2019-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA VS. THE SORDAR, SKHEMBOR KHONGJIREM OF WAHKHEN VILLAGE [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA VS. PATRICIA MUKHIM [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SAURAV CHAUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
NAROTTAMDAS L SHAH VS. PATEL MAGANBHAI REVABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1984-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
SURVODAYA MILLS WORKERS UNION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
PRATHIBA M. SINGH VS. SINGH & ASSOCIATES [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA VENKATESH SHET VS. SUDHIR N. SINDHE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
S RAJEEV, N PARAVOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1999-11-129] [REFERRED]
RANJIT DATTARAM SATARDEKAR VS. RUCMINI RAGHUNATH NARVEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2003-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
NANDLAL KHODIDAS BAROT VS. BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1980-9-8] [DISTINGUISHED]
N G DASTANE VS. SHRIKANT S SHIVDE [LAWS(SC)-2001-5-77] [REFERRED]
T.N.RAGHUPATHY VS. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
J. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1999-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VS. PARESHKUMAR BHASKARRAI DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
MANIKANDAN VATHAN CHETTIAR AND ORS. VS. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-109] [REFERRED TO]
DUKE AND SONS LTD VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF C EX [LAWS(BOM)-1976-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
KANPUR INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1998-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
OM SAI TRADING COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2019-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
TATA CHEMICALS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT CHANCHAL JHA VS. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. A.RAJAPPA [LAWS(SC)-1978-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE VS. RAVI SHYAMNANI [LAWS(MPH)-2017-7-200] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. H C SANJIV MALIK [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-368] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU ACTION TAKEN VS. SADHNA UPADHYAYA ADVOCATE DISTRICT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
IN-RE VS. VIKRAM SHARMA (CLERK) [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN MUSAFIR AND ORS. VS. SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(NGT)-2015-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
DHABJI MEGHJI MAHESHWARI VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
ADV. P. NAGARAJ VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(KER)-2013-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
R. D. VIJAY ANAND VS. SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-105] [REFERRED TO [PARA 36]]
STATE VS. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) [LAWS(NGT)-2014-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
ZAFAR M NAIYER VS. U P BAR COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-148] [REFERRED]
SMT. P KALPANA VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF AP HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
R. MUTHUKRISHNAN VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-232] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASSOCIATIONS OF CLASS I OFFICER [LAWS(UTN)-2020-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
D P CHADHA VS. TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA [LAWS(SC)-2000-12-20] [REFERRED]
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. A.K. BALAJI AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER VS. IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
NORATAMAL CHOURARIA VS. M R MURLI [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION REGD SINDRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1980-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAMON SERVICES PVT LIMITED VS. SUBHASH KAPOOR [LAWS(SC)-2000-11-184] [REFERRED]
A J MOAHMMED IQBAL VS. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-169] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
GULF CORPORATION LIMITED VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2011-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT CHAURASIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-57] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM VS. SUMIT TANWAR [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. V.MOHAN [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
K.ANJINAPPA VS. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
THE MAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT U.P., DEHRADUN [LAWS(UTN)-2014-3-142] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN LAL GERA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(NGT)-2015-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
J.K. TRADERS, DOTURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2019-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
A K SUBBAIAH VS. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2002-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
VINEETH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF C A OF INDIA VS. H S GHIA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSOTTAM GIRI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-247] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PANDEY ADVOCATE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2002-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU VS. YOGESH J. BHATT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-102] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals have filled us as much with deep sorrow as with pained surprise. The story of the alleged 'professional misconduct' and the insensitivity of the disciplinary authority to aberrant professional conduct have been the source of our distress, as we will presently explain, after unfurling the factual canvas first.
(2.)The first chapter of the litigation in this Court related to the standing of the State Bar Council to appeal to this Court, under Sec. 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) against an appellate decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Bar Council of India. This Court upheld the competence to appeal, thus leading us to the present stage of disposing of the eight cases on merits.
(3.)The epileptic episodes- what other epithet can adequately express the solicitation circus dramatised by the witnesses as practiced by the panel of advocate-respondents before us - make us blush in the narration.
For, after all, do we not all together belong to the 'inner republic of bench and bar' The putative delinquents are lawyers practising in the criminal courts in Bombay City. Their profession ordains a high level of ethics as much in the means as in the ends. Justice cannot be attained without the stream being pellucid throughout its course and that is of great public concern, not merely professional care. Briefly expressed, these practitioners, according to testimony recorded by the State Disciplinary Tribunal, positioned themselves at the entrance to the Magistrates' Courts, watchful of the arrival of potential litigants. At sight they rushed towards the clients in an ugly scrimmage to snatch the briefs, to lay claim to the engagements even by physical fight to undercut fees and by this unedifying exhibition ,sometimes carried even into the Bar Library ,solicited and secured work for themselves. If these charges were true, any member of the Bar with elementary ethics in his bosom would be outraged at his brethren's conduct and yet ,in reversal of the State Disciplinary Committee's finding , the appellant Tribunal at the national level appeared to have entered a verdict based on three point formula, that this conduct, even if true, was after all, an attempt to solicit practice and did not cross the border line of misconduct. The Bar Council of State of Maharashtra ( the appellant before us) and the Bar Council of India which is a party-respondent ,have expressed consternation at this view of the law of professional misconduct and we share this alarm. Were this view right ,it is difficult to call the legal profession noble. Were this understanding of deviant behaviour sound ,there is little to distinguish between railway porters and and legal practitioners although we do not mean to hurt the former and have mentioned the past practice, to drive home our present point. We do not wish to dilate further on the evidence in so far as it concerns each of the respondent-advocates in view of certain developments which we will presently notice. There are eight cases but we are relieved from dissecting the evidence against most of them for reasons which we will hopefully and shortly state.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.