The Supreme Court has recently quashed and expunged an adverse warning issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against an advocate after noting that the original complaint alleging professional misconduct had already been dismissed as false and motivated.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that once the disciplinary authorities found no merit in the complaint, there was no justification for the BCI to issue a warning against the advocate.

The matter arose from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, against advocate Prem Pal Singh, who practices in the courts of Moradabad district, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, who was also the husband of the advocate’s sister, alleged that the advocate had threatened to kill him amid an ongoing matrimonial dispute within the family.

The Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council dismissed the complaint after concluding that it was false, frivolous, and filed with mala fide intentions to harass the advocate. The State Bar Council also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the complainant.

Subsequently, the complainant challenged the order before the Bar Council of India. While the BCI upheld the dismissal of the complaint and refused to interfere with the findings of the State Bar Council, it removed the cost imposed on the complainant. However, the BCI additionally recorded a warning against the advocate, observing that he should not indulge in any conduct involving threats or intimidation.

Aggrieved by this adverse observation, the advocate approached the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that both the State Bar Council and the BCI had concurrently found no substance in the allegations of professional misconduct. The Court noted that despite this, the BCI “without any justification whatsoever” proceeded to issue a warning against the advocate.

The Bench further emphasized that the complainant had accepted the findings that the complaint was frivolous and motivated, as he did not challenge those findings before any competent forum.

The Court ultimately held that the Bar Council of India had exceeded its jurisdiction in recording such a warning and ordered that the adverse observations against the advocate be quashed and struck off.

Case Title: Prem Pal Singh vs Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India & Others