Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Take Disciplinary Action Against A Lawyer; Asks Petitioner To Approach Bar Council

A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia granted liberty to withdraw the matter.

During the hearing, the bench asked the petitioners,

"In appellate authority in this matter is the Bar Council of India. Then why have you come before Court by way of an Article 32 petition?"

The petitioner submitted that that the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had refused to take action against Respondent No. 3 (A senior Advocate) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The complaint against him was that he had indulged in gross misconduct by filing a concocted and fraudulent report of a handwriting expert before the Supreme Court in a special leave petition.

Based on the concocted and fraudulent report, the Supreme Court had dismissed SLP which was filed by the father of the present petitioner in 2005.

When the court was dissatisfied with the counsel's response, he sought permission to withdraw the plea.

"Sorry sir. Dismissed as withdrawn."

Case Name: Ravjot Singh vs Bar Council of India