LI Network
Published on: December 15, 2023 at 11:40 IST
The Calcutta High Court clarified that the State Bar Council’s opinion on alleged misconduct does not limit the Disciplinary Committee’s authority to examine the maintainability of a complaint.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya stated that the mere belief by the State Bar Council that an advocate may be guilty of misconduct does not restrict the Disciplinary Committee from scrutinizing the maintainability of the complaint.
The ruling arose from a petition where the petitioner filed a complaint against certain advocates before the West Bengal State Bar Council.
The petitioner argued that, as per Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961, the statutory cutoff for disposing of such complaints is one year from receipt, beyond which the matter automatically transfers to the Bar Council of India. The petitioner contended that since the one-year period had lapsed, the proceedings should be transferred.
The Court considered the petitioner’s arguments regarding the cutoff date and examined whether the Disciplinary Committee had the authority to decide the complaint’s maintainability.
The Court concluded that the one-year period commences from the date the complaint is received by the Disciplinary Committee, not the State Bar Council.
The judgment emphasized that the Disciplinary Committee retains the power to independently assess the complaint’s maintainability, regardless of the State Bar Council’s opinion.
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Disciplinary Committee would continue its jurisdiction until the expiry of the one-year statutory period.
Case Title: Somabrata Mandal v Bar Council of West Bengal and others
