Supreme Court: Advocates Not Liable for Affidavit Contents

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment (2025 INSC 1147), has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against two practising advocates, emphasising that an advocate cannot be held liable for professional misconduct merely for identifying a client or attesting to an affidavit filed by an opposing party.

The ruling arose from two sets of appeals where the BCMG had attempted to proceed against advocates based on complaints filed by opposing litigants.

Detailed Account of the Cases

Case 1: Rajiv Narula v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa

The appeal, brought by the BCMG, challenged an interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which had stayed a BCMG order referring a complaint against Advocate Rajiv Narula to its Disciplinary Committee (DC).

The complaint against Mr. Narula, filed by Khimji Devji Parmar, alleged professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The core allegation stemmed from a suit dating back to 1985. The complainant alleged that Mr. Narula, representing M/s. Unique Construction (the plaintiff), suppressed material facts and helped obtain a consent decree without the knowledge or consent of defendant Dara Nariman Sarkari, thereby defrauding the legal representatives of a partner in M/s. Volga Enterprises.

Mr. Narula contended that the complaint was mala fide and malicious, noting that he had admittedly not represented the complainant. The Supreme Court found that Mr. Narula’s role was confined to simply identifying the plaintiff (the authorized representative of M/s. Unique Construction) in the Consent Terms, which remain valid and undisturbed to date.

The Court further criticized the initial order passed by the Judge-Advocate of the BCMG referring the matter to the DC (dated July 6, 2023). This order was deemed “absolutely cryptic and laconic” because it did not record any satisfaction regarding whether the advocate had committed misconduct, and failed to include even a bald reference to the gist of the allegations.

Case 2: Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad v. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri

In the second set of cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to quash proceedings against Advocate Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. Ms. Shastri was accused of misconduct because she identified the deponent of an affidavit filed by the opposing party (a college) in a suit she was involved in. The complainant alleged that the contents of the affidavit were false, and that by identifying the deponent, the advocate “purportedly attested to the correctness of the contents of that affidavit” and lent support to the false recitals.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the allegations were “wholly absurd and untenable“. The Court clarified that the mere act of identifying the deponent in an affidavit does not make the advocate responsible for the contents of the affidavit. This was characterized as a clear case of malicious prosecution at the behest of an opponent litigant.

Key Points of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment established crucial limitations on the powers of State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates:

• Lack of Jural Relationship: Prosecution of an advocate based on a complaint filed by the lawyer of the opposite party is “highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for”. Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for invoking disciplinary jurisdiction for professional misconduct.
• Identification is Not Misconduct: The mere act of identifying a party in Consent Terms (which remain valid) or identifying the deponent of an affidavit cannot be deemed professional misconduct under Section 35 of the 1961 Act.
• No Responsibility for Affidavit Contents: An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit.
• Requirement for Reference Orders: Referring a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee requires the State Bar Council to have a “reason to believe” that the advocate has been guilty of misconduct. This requirement mandates a recording of reasons and prima facie satisfaction.
• Cryptic Orders Invalid: A reference order that is “absolutely cryptic and laconic” and lacks even a bare minimum discussion of the allegations fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 35(1) of the 1961 Act and cannot be sustained.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, emphasised the serious implications of disciplinary referrals:

Reference of a complaint of the DC would have serious consequences on the professional career of the lawyer and could tarnish his image and standing in the profession. Hence a cryptic order referring the complaint to the DC without a bare minimum discussion of the allegations contained in the complaint would not satisfy the requirements of a valid reference order. – The Court Said

The Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the BCMG in the case involving Rajiv Narula for entertaining the frivolous complaint. In the case involving Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, costs of Rs. 50,000/- each were imposed on both the complainant (Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad) and the BCMG.

Judgment Details

Case Titles

The ruling covers two primary sets of matters that were heard together due to common legal issues:

1. Main Appeal (Rajiv Narula Case):
   • BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA (Appellant) VERSUS RAJIV NARESHCHANDRA NARULA & ORS. (Respondent).
   • This judgment arose from CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 27606 of 2023).
2. Connected Appeals (Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri Case):
   • The judgment also disposed of SLP (CIVIL) NO (s). of 2025 (@ Diary No(s). 38238 of 2023) and SLP (CIVIL) NO (S). 1492 OF 2024.
   • These connected petitions arose from the High Court’s order dated August 9, 2023, which involved Advocate Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri.