No Special Treatment Merely Because He's An Advocate: Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Bar Council's Disciplinary Action Against Gunratan Sadavarte

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to stay the disciplinary proceeding initiated against Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for alleged misdemeanours.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale observed that Sadavarte won't be given any special treatment merely because he is an advocate and alleges the complaint is politically motivated. Prima facie the court didn't find any procedural infirmity with the Bar Council's notice.

"We are not going to allow you to open the canvas against the Bar Council like this...We won't give any special treatment because the petitioner before us happens to be an advocate," the court said and issued Rule on his plea.

According to the complaint filed by Advocate Susheel Manchekar, Sadavarte is seen wearing his advocate's band during television debates, public events and agitations in violations the advocates ethics code.

On February 7, 2023 the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa issued a notice to Sadavarte informing him about the disciplinary proceedings and directed him to remain present following which he approached the High Court.

On Tuesday Senior Advocate Milind Sathe informed the court that pursuant to a previous hearing, a second complaint against Sadavarte was dismissed. However the Bar Council would be pursuing the first complaint.

At the outset the bench observed that the complaint lacked specifics despite being filed by an advocate. Moreover, while forwarding the complaint to the disciplinary committee, some unnecessary observations were made by the Bar Council member.

However, the court said it was extremely reluctant to overseer the Bar Council and nothing warranted the court's interference.

Advocate Subhash Jha for Sadavarte submitted that the complaint has been filed by someone who has nothing to do with him.

"The complainant is in Pune, I am here. This complaint has to be thrown out at the threshold," he said adding that Section 35 of the Advocate's Act specially deals with complaints by clients against lawyers.

"We are not inclined to stay the proceedings...we will not take over that jurisdiction just because the petitioner believes it has political colour," Justice Patel clarified.

The court was livid after Jha began making allegations against Bar Council members and sought time citing some technical error.

The bench said, it wouldn't take over the jurisdiction of the Bar Council Committee merely because the petitioner believed it had political colour.

"We are not here to hear you till you are satisfied, we are here to hear you till WE are satisfied to pass an order...There is no reason in administrative and judicial law to interfere in this process."

The bench was willing to grant limited relief regarding the preliminary observations against Sadavarte and also keep all contentions open.

But the petitioner's counsel said if stay wasn't being granted then the court may simply issue Rule. Justice Patel's bench issued Rule and expedited the matter accordingly.

Also Read | Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte Approaches Bombay High Court After Bar Council Initiates Disciplinary Proceedings For 'Malicious' Statements In Media