Case Analysis: Bar Council of Maharashtra V/S M.V. Dabholkar
The State Bar Council, which is referred to as the local Appellant in this issue, is the organization that is responsible for submitting the complaint to the Bar Council of India, which is one of the respondents in this case. This complaint may be traced back to the period when prospective defendants attended the Magistrate’s Court, snatched their files (which usually culminated in a violent confrontation), and then pled guilty to the charges against them. Since possible defendants wanted to attend the courtroom at that time, the staff meeting had to be evacuated so they could let them in.
The outrage shown by members of the general public in response to this misconduct has been so severe that the Maharashtra High Court has taken the unprecedented step of complaining to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. The recommendation that the issue be abandoned was made by the disciplinary committee of the Maharashtra Legal Council in line with the requirements of paragraph (1) of section 35 of the Advocates Act of 1961. The Disciplinary Committee of the Legislative Council of India concluded that all eight case files should be tried concurrently as part of a single procedure and that the same judgment should be made to dismiss all eight cases. This conclusion was arrived at after an investigation into the subject, as well as taking into account the number of different instances.
The Disciplinary Committee of the State Assembly concluded that the actions, according to their nature, constituted inappropriate behavior in the workplace. As a consequence of this decision, the students were expelled from their classes for a term of three years. The Bar Council of India was presented with a petition in this matter. After that, the Bar Council of India, acting in line with Section 37 (1), submitted the matter to the Disciplinary Committee so that it might undertake more study on the matter. Once it was found that the activities of the accused “do not cross the line of misbehavior in the workplace,” the order that had been handed down by the State Bar Council of India was amended by the Bar Council of India. This conclusion was arrived at by using a formula including three components, each of which is a need for practicing law:
1) the purpose of the application; ii) to a distinct person; and iii) concerning a particular circumstance.
A remark that it would be an understatement to claim that thinking any one of these three things is sufficient to explain one’s actions or behavior would not be an accurate statement. After a decision reached by the Bar Council of India, the State Bar Council was granted permission to petition the Supreme Court for compensation for the damage it had suffered as a consequence of the decision. The Advocates Act of 1961, Section 38, mandated that this be done, and it was carried out in compliance with those regulations. This is the foundation for the current appeal that was taken into consideration.
MAJOR CONCERNS RAISED
- Whether the individuals who are being charged are guilty of engaging in professional misconduct.
- If the State Bar Council has been subjected to any kind of legal wrongdoing and the Bar Council of India has not deprived the State Bar Council of anything, may it be deemed a party that has been wronged and hence an aggrieved party?
- Clause 25 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872
- Section 37, clause 2 of the Advocates Act
- Principle of natural justice clause
- Adi pherozgandhi vs UOI AIR 1971 SC 385
- Advocates Act referred.
It would seem that there is no place for dispute about the extensive and serious interest that the general public has in railroads. This perception is supported by the fact that there is a lack of opportunity for debate. It is generally accepted that railroads are required for the successful functioning of a nation’s economy; hence, any component of this sort must, a priori, be regarded as a vital contributor to the well-being of the general population. In light of this, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to learn that maintaining a healthy financial position on a railroad is crucial not only to the company’s investors but also to the general public but… After ruling that the management of a railroad had responsibilities that extend to the general public in addition to fiduciary duties that are traceable to the corporation’s owners, the court arrived at this decision. The court determined that, of these two obligations, the obligation to the general public comes first, followed by the obligation to the shareholders’ interests.
The Supreme Court of the United States issued the following cautionary statement: “It is important to keep in mind that railroads are public corporations organized for public purposes and that all of them primarily owe duties to the general public that are of a nature even more important than that of earning large dividends for their shareholders.”
It is not appropriate to give the word “person aggrieved” a restricted meaning since it may have a considerably larger relevance than what is being suggested here. They do not include, of course, a busybody who is interfering in things that don’t concern him; however, they do include someone who encompasses a genuine grievance because an order has been made that adversely affects his interests. This person’s interests have been affected negatively because of the order that was made. This is because the order was issued in a manner that was contrary to his best interests. Does the Attorney General have an interest in this case that is significant enough for him to be of any use? He has the view that their Lordships are of the same position. The Crown is often represented by the Attorney General in a colony that is considered to have a great deal of authority. In this capacity, the Attorney General serves as the guardian of the general public interest. It is up to him to bring any incidence of professional misconduct committed by a barrister or solicitor that is severe enough to warrant disciplinary action to the notice of the court.
The Bar is not a private guild in the same vein as professions such as “barbers,” “butchers,” and “candlestick-makers,” but rather it is a public institution dedicated to the administration of public justice and unpaid public service. As compared to the personal guilds that were discussed before, this is a remarkable difference. The granting of a monopoly license to practice law is contingent on the fulfillment of three presumptions before the license may be issued. These presumptions are as follows: (1) there is a socially valued function that needs to be fulfilled by the lawyer. (2) The lawyer may be a trained professional who is accountable for carrying out that obligation; (3) His behavior as a knowledgeable person is controlled both by himself and, more formally, by the profession as a whole.
The only thing that is necessary for the bar to perform to fulfill its principal job is to take care of the administration. The national hope that the members of this monopoly will serve society and adhere to canons of ethics befitting an honorable order is woven into a rainbow of public-service corporation duties, such as providing legal aid to the poor. When one examines the functions of the Bar Council, it becomes obvious that a rainbow of public-service corporation duties is woven into this national hope. This becomes clear when one considers the roles that the Bar Council plays in the legal system.
So, in the end, can we not all, at the same time, belong to the “inner republic of bencher and bar”? The alleged perpetrators are members of the legal profession working as attorneys in the criminal courts of Bombay City. Their line of work mandates a high moral standard, one that places equal weight on doing the best possible both in terms of the methods and the goals. To achieve justice, the stream must remain transparent during its whole path, which is not only a matter of concern for professionals but also significant importance to the general public. To put it simply, these practitioners, following evidence that was recorded by the State Disciplinary Tribunal, positioned themselves at the entrance to the Magistrates Courts and kept an eye out for those who could be interested in bringing a case before the court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by Jay Kumar Gupta, School of Law, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bengaluru