Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Advocate's Writ Petition Challenging BCI's Bar On Contesting Elections; Asks Him To Approach HC

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 30) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging an order of the Bar Council of India barring from contesting elections in any Bar Council.

The Court was hearing the petition filed by Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte challenging the BCI's decision which was imposed citing a ruckus created allegedly by him during the counting process during the election on July 13, 2018. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela Trivedi asked the petitioner to approach the relevant High Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly.

“We are of the opinion that the petitioner should approach jurisdictional HC of his choice by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution rather than approaching this court as the first instance under Art. 32. Accordingly, we exercise discretion not to entertain this writ petition with liberty to petitioner to approach jurisdictional HC," the bench ordered.

The bench also considered a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the refusal of the Bombay High Court to entertain a writ petition filed by him challenging the decision of the  Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to suspend his license to practice for two years for wearing appearing in lawyer's coat outside the Bombay High Court during a protest.  

As far as the SLP is concerned, the bench ordered: “Without commenting on the merits of the matter and the issues raised, the application for withdrawal of SLP is allowed. Accordingly, the SLP is dismissed as withdrawn.”

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan, representing the petitioner Sadavarte, provided a comprehensive overview of the case. Notably, Sadavarte's background as a two-time president of the Bar Association in Maharashtra and his involvement in bar council elections were emphasized.

Sankarnarayan outlined the complaints against Sadavarte, including a disturbance during the counting on July 13, 2018, leading to disciplinary actions proposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Despite the BCI's resolution returning the disciplinary issue to the state bar council, the BCI advocated severe action, resulting in a permanent ban on Sadavarte's participation in any state bar council elections.

Another incident, involving Sadavarte protesting outside the Bombay High Court, led to a two-year suspension. This suspension had been in effect for eight months at the time of the proceedings.

When questioned about a Special Leave Petition (SLP), Shankarnarayan explained that it challenged a High Court order advising against raising the debarring issue in the HC, urging the pursuit of alternative remedies.

The Court, without delving into the case's merits, permitted the withdrawal of the SLP, leaving only the writ petition for consideration. Justice Khanna suggested approaching the High Court, but Shankarnarayan argued that, given the advanced stage of proceedings, Article 19(1)(g) justified continued consideration in the Supreme Court.

Despite the court's reluctance to act as a court of first instance, Shankarnarayan highlighted the extended duration of the case in the Supreme Court and the imminent conclusion of his tenure. Justice Khanna stressed the importance of adhering to Article 226 and urged the petitioner to go to the High Court.

While dismissing the writ petition, the court allowed the petitioner to submit the entire documentation to the High Court, recognizing the urgency expressed and granting permission to request an expedited resolution. The court concluded by noting the urgency and permitting the petitioner to seek prompt disposal from the High Court, officially dismissing the writ petition as not entertained.

Case title: Gunratan Niwartirao Sadvarte v. Bar Council of India

Citation: W.P.(C) No. 923/2019

For petitioner: Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan, AOR Raj Singh Rana

Click Here To Read/Download Order