The Supreme Court on September 24, 2025, imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for entertaining what it termed a frivolous complaint against an advocate. The Bench directed that the cost be paid directly to the advocate who was unnecessarily subjected to disciplinary proceedings.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while dismissing BCMG’s Special Leave Petition [SLP(C) No. 27606/2023], which had challenged a Bombay High Court ruling staying disciplinary proceedings initiated against the advocate.

The controversy originated from a complaint lodged before BCMG alleging misconduct by an advocate in connection with settlement terms recorded in a 1985 civil suit, where the advocate represented the plaintiff.

The complainant alleged that he had been defrauded by the Consent Terms dated July 1, 2005, and supplementary Consent Terms dated August 24, 2005, claiming that his property had been fraudulently included in those terms.

On July 6, 2023, the Bar Council referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, for inquiry and disposal.

The advocate challenged this referral before the Bombay High Court, which found the complaint to be prima facie untenable.

The High Court noted that neither the complainant, nor his father, nor his father’s firm had ever been parties to the 1985 suit. It also pointed out that the complainant had already filed proceedings to set aside the consent terms on the grounds of fraud, and therefore any alleged fraud by the parties could not logically be attributed to the advocate representing the plaintiff.

The High Court further relied on its earlier ruling in Geeta Ramanugrah Shashtri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, where it had cautioned against the growing trend of litigants harassing or browbeating opposing counsel by filing baseless disciplinary complaints.

Concluding that there was no reason to believe the advocate was guilty of misconduct, the High Court stayed further disciplinary proceedings.

Challenging the High Court’s order, BCMG approached the Supreme Court. However, the top court refused to interfere and instead imposed a ₹50,000 cost on the Council, holding that the proceedings were misconceived and unnecessary.

By making the Bar Council compensate the advocate, the Court sent a strong signal against initiating disciplinary actions without sufficient grounds.

Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Ors.
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 27606/2023