Holding

Seeking adjournments to avoid examination of a present witness, without making alternative arrangements, constitutes professional misconduct, and the Bar Councils erred in dismissing the complaint; the matter must be referred to the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee under Section 36.

Summary

N.G. Dastane, an aggrieved witness, filed a complaint against advocates Shri Shrikant S. Shivde and his colleague for repeatedly seeking adjournments to avoid his cross‑examination in a theft‑of‑electricity case, despite his presence in court. The Judicial Magistrate granted each adjournment, causing hardship to the witness. Dastane approached the Maharashtra State Bar Council, which dismissed the complaint for lack of a prima facie case; the Bar Council of India likewise rejected his revision petition. The Supreme Court examined whether such conduct amounts to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and held that seeking adjournments without arranging alternative examination is a dereliction of duty and constitutes misconduct, including filibustering. The Court further held that the Bar Councils have a statutory duty to forward genuine complaints to their disciplinary committees and set aside the orders of both councils. The matter was referred to the Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee under Section 36 for disposal.

Issues considered

The repeated seeking of adjournments by advocates to avoid cross‑examination of a present witness amounts to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Whether the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of a prima facie case.
The duty of Bar Councils to refer genuine complaints of advocate misconduct to their disciplinary committees.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 35, s. 36

Subjects

professional misconductadvocatesadjournmentwitness examinationBar Councildisciplinary committeeAdvocates ActSection 35Section 36filibusterabuse of process

Judgment

·:-1

A N.G. DASTANE
v. --1__.
SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE AND ANR. ..
• 'I:-
_,.
MAY 3, 2001

B [K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Advocates Act, 1961:
I-
S. 35(i)-Advocates- "Professional or other misconduct"-Cross-
c examination of witness-Adjournments sought repeatedly though witness
present in the Court on all the dates-No alternative arrangement for
examination of witnesses made-Held, amounts to misconduct-Advocate is
duty bound to see that witnesses present in the Court were examined-Any
misdemeanour or misdeed or misbehaviour interfering with the administration
of justice, amounts to misconduct-Tactics of filibuster is also professional
D misconduct.
y
Power and Duty of State Bar Council-Advocate- "Professional or
other misconduct"-Held, if Bar Council comes across any instance of
misconduct which is genuine and not actuated with the sole purpose of
harassing the advocate, it is duty bound to forward the complaint to the
E
Disciplinary Committee. ..
Witness-Examination of-Counsel for accused avoiding cross
examination and seeking repeated adjournments on flimsy grounds-Held,
Court should not accede to such tactics.
F
Words and Phrases :

"Professional or other misconduct"-Meaning of in the context of ....
S.35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

G In a complaint filed by the appellant for the offence of theft of electricity,
respondent-Advocates were engaged by the accused. After examination-in-
chief, the case was posted for cross-examination of appellant hlstead of cross-
examining the appellant, the respondents went on seeking adjournments on >-->·-
one or tht other pretext and every time the Court yielded to their request.
On one of such occasion i·espondent No. 1 sought adjournment on the ground
H 442
+
N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE 443

.. that he was unable to speak on account Of throat infection. However, he was A
seen forcefully and fluently arguing a matter before another court situated
in the same building. Appellant lodged a complaint before State Bar Council
for taking disciplinary action against the respondents, which was dismissed
on the ground that no prima facie case was made out Thereafter, appellant
unsucessfully filed a revision petition before the Bar Council of India. Against B
the orders of State 'Bar Council and Bar Council of India, appellant has
preferred the present appeal. During the hearing of the case, the Court felt
that apart from the question of professional misconduct of the respondents,
the Judicial Magistrate, who yielded to all the procrastinative tactics, should
be made answerable to the High Court so that action could be taken against
the Magistrate on the administrative side for such serious laches. Therefore C
show cause notice was issued upon the Magistrate. However, since the said
Judicial Magistrate explained that she was new to the service and had started
working at the relevant time as a regular Magistrate after completing the
training, the Court refrained from recommending any disciplinary action
against her.
D
Disposing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Appellant-complaiHant has made out a very strongprima
facie case for the disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council to proceed
with. However, the State Bar Council has abdicated its duties by holding that
there was no primafacie case for the Disciplinary Committee to take up. E
The Bar Council of India also went 'Yoefully wrong in holding that there was
no case for revision at all. (451-G]

2.1. Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses
......
who are present in court even without making other arrangements for
examining such witnesses is dereliction of advocate's duty to the Court as F
that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such
dereliction if repeated wculd amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned.
Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the Court procedures.
Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct
(450-FJ G
2.2. Advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of misconduct.
When witnesses are present in Court for examination, the advocate concerned
has a duty to see that their examination is conducted. Witnesses come to the
Court, on being called by the Court, do so as they have no other option, and
0

such witnesses are also responsible citizens who have other work to attend H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A for eking out livelihood. They cannot be treated as less respectables to be
told to come again and again just to suit the convenience of the advocate
concerned. If the advocate has any unavoidable inconvenience it is his duty
to make other arrangements for examining the witnesses who are present ·-------'
in Court. [450-D-E]
B 3.1. When the Bar Council in its wider scope of supervision over the
conduct of advocates in their professional duties comes across any instance
of misconduct it is the duty of the Bar Council concerned to refer the matter
to its Disciplinary Committee. The expression "reason to believe" is employed
in S.35 of the Act only for the limited purpose of using it as a filter for
excluding frivolous complaints against advocates. If the complaint is genuine
C and· if ·the complaint is not lodged with the sole purpose of harassing an
advocates or if it is not actuated by ma/a fides, the State Bar Council has
a statutory duty to forward the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee.
[451-D]

3.2. S.35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 indicates that the misconduct
D referred to therein is of a much wider import. The collocation of the words
"guilty of professional or other misconduct" in section 35 of the Act has
been used for the purpose of conferring power on the Disciplinary Committee
of the State Bar Council. It is for equipping the Bar Council with the binocul~r
as well as whip to be on the qui vive for tracing out delinquent advocates who
E transgress the norms or standards expected of them in the discharge of their
professional duties. The central function of the legal profession is to help
promotion of administration of justice. Any misdemeanour or misdeed or
misbehaviour can become an act of delinquency, if it infringes such norms
or standards and it can be regarded as misconduct. [449-E]
F State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, JT (2001) 4 SC 319, relied on.

R.D. Saxena v. Bairam Prasad Sharma, [2000) 7 SCC 264 and George
· Frier Grahma v. Attorney General, AIR (1936) PC 224, referred to.
A Solicitor exp the Law Society, in re, 1912 (1) KB 302, referred to.
G Blacks Law Dictionary, referred to.

4. The Judicial Magistrate without any qualms or sensitivity succumbed
to the delaying tactics and granted the adjournment prayed for and on one
such occasion the Magistrate did not care even to ask the second respondent
why he could not conduct the cross-examination, if his colleague the first
H respondent was so unwell. [ia47-G]
+
N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE [THOMAS, J.] 445
5. The orders of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India A
are set aside. However, in the instant case, as the misconduct alleged is of
·. the year 1993-94 ends of justice demand that the Disciplinary Committee of
the Bar Council of India should now deal with the complaint. Consequently,
the complaint of the appellant stands referred to the Bar Council of India
under Section 36 of the Act. [452-C]
B
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Mr~ Dabholkar, [1976) 2 SCR 48,
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3543 of
2001.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.99 communicated on 20.4.2000

- of the Bar Council of India in Rev. Petition No. 15 of 1995.

P.H. Parekh and Amit Dhingra for the Appellant.

Vijay S. Kotwal and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondents. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

We are much grieved, if not peeved, in noticing how two advocates E
succeeded in tormenting a witness by seeking numerous adjournments for
cross-examining him in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate. On all those days
the witness had to be present perforce and at considerable cost to him. It
became a matter of deep concern to us when we noticed that the Judicial
Magistrate had, on all such occasions, obliged the advocates by granting
such adjournments on the mere asking to the incalculable inconvenience and F
suffering of the witness. When he was convinced that those two advocates
were adopting the tactics of subterfuge by putting forth untrue excuses every
time for postponing cross-examination he demurred. But the Magistrate did
not help him. Ultimately when pressed against the wall he moved the State
Bar Council for taking disciplinary proceedings against the advocates G
concerned. But the State Bar Council simply shut its doors informing him that
he did not have even a prima facie case against the delinquent advocates.
He met the same fate when he moved the Bar Council of India with a revision
petition, as the revision petition was axed down at the threshold itself. The
exasperated witness, exhausted by all the drubbings, has now come before
this Court with this appeal by special leave. H
+
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Appellant, the aforesaid aggrieved witness, describes himself to be an
agriculturist scientist. He claims to have worked as an Advisor in the UNO
until he retired therefrom. He filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate ....i......
of First Class, Pune (Maharashtra) against some accused for the offence of
theft of electricity. The accused in the said complaint case engaged Advocate
B Shri Shivde (the first respondent) and his colleague Shri Kulkarni (the second
respondent) who were practising in the courts at Pune. The two respondent-
advocates filed a joint Vakalatnama before the trial court and the trial began
in 1993. Appellant was examined in-chief. Thus far there was no problem.

The agony of the appellant started when the Magistrate posted the case )--
C for cross-examination of the appellant on 30.7.1993. As per the versio.n of the
appellant, he had to come down from New York for being cross-examined on
tl.at day, but the second respondent advocate sought for an adjournment on
the ground that it was not possible to conduct the cross-examination unless
all the other witnesses for the prosecution were also present in court. We
have no doubt that such a demand was not made with good faith. It was
D aimed at causing unnecessary harassment to witnesses. No other purpose
could be achieved by such demand. Although the court was conscious that
insistence of presence of the other witnesses has no legal sanction, the
Judicial Magistrate conceded to the request and posted the case to 23.8.1993. >-- ·

On that day, appellant and all his witnesses were present in. court. But
E both the respondents sought for an adjournment, the first respondent on the
premise that he was busy outside the court, and the second respondent on
the premise ~hat "the father of the first respondent's friend expired". The
Judicial Magistrate yielded to that request, apparently in a very casual manner
and adjourned the case to 13.9.1993.
F On that day also the respondents sought for an adjournment but on a
flippant reason. Appellant's counsel raised objections against the prayer for
adjournment. Nevertheless the Judicial Magistrate again adjourned the case
and posted it to 16.10.1993. We may point out that the sai!i date was chosen
by the court as the respondell}s represented to the court that the said date
G was quite convenient to them.

Appellant, thoroughly disgusted, had two options before him. One was
to get dropped out from the case and the other one was to continue to suffer.
He had chosen the latter and presented himself along with all the witnesses
on 16.10.1993. But alas, the respondents again asked for adjournment on that
H day also. This time the adjournment was sought on the ground that one of
N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE [THOMAS, J.] 447
the respondent advocates was out of station. It seems that the Judicial A
Magistrate yielded to the request this time also and posted the case to
20.11.1993 peremptorily. It would have been a sad plight to see how the
appellant and his witnesses were walking out of the court complex without
the case registering even a wee bit of progress in spite of his attending the
Court on so many days for the purpose of being cross-examined. His opposite
party would have laughed in his mind as to how his advocates succeeded in B
tormenting the complainant by abusing the process of court through securing
adjournments after adjournments. The complainant would have wept in his
mind for choosing a judicial forum for redressal of his grievance.

On 20.11.1993, appellant and all his witnesses .were again present, C
possibly with a certitude that they would be examined at least now because
of the peremptory order passed by the Magistrate on the previous occasion.
Unfortunately, the peremptoriness of the order did not create even a ripple
on the respondents' advocates and they ventured to seek for an adjournment
again on the ground that one of the respondents' advocates was indisposed.
There was not even a suggestion as to what was the inconvenience for the D
co-advocate. Even so, the Magistrate yielded to that request also and the
case was again adjourned t0 4.12.1993.

The flash point in the cauldron of the agony and grievance of the
appellant reached on 4.12.1993. He presented himself before the court for
being cross-examined, despite all the frets and vexations suffered by him till E
that day hoping that at least on this occasion respondents would not concoct
any alibi for dodging the cross-examination. But the second respondent who
was present in the court sought for an adjournment again with a written
application, on the following premise:

"Advocate Shivde (first respondent) is unable to speak on account F
of the throat infection and continuous cough. The doctor has advised
him to take two weeks' rest. Hence he is unable to conduct the matter
before this Hon'ble court today. It is therefore prayed that the hearing
may kindly be adjourned for three weeks in the interest of justice."

The Judicial Magistrate without any qualms or sensitivity succumbed
G
to the said tactics also and granted the adjournment prayed for. The Magistrate
did not care even to ask the second respondent why he could not conduct
the cross-examination, if his colleague first respondent is so unwell. But the
Magistrate felt no difficulty to immediately allow the request for again
adjourning the case. Of course the Magistrate ordered that a medical certificate H
{

+
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 3 S.C.R.

A should be produced by the first respondent and cost of Rs. 75 should be paid
to the appellant. A poor solace for the agony inflicted on him. .J.....

According to the appellant, after the case was adjourned on 4. I2. I 993,
he went out of the court room and while he. was walking through the corridors
of the court complex he happened to come across the first respondent
B "forcefully and fluently arguing" a matter before another court situated in the
same building. It was that sight which caused him to venture to lodge the
complaint against both the respondents before the Maharashtra State Bar
Council on 27. I2. I 993. He had narrated the details of his complaint in the ~-
petition pre~~ted before the State Bar Council and prayed for taking necessary
c actions against the two advocates.

Both the respondents filed a joint reply to the above complaint in which
they stated, inter alia, that respondent No. I was suffering from severe throat
iflfection and temperature and was under medical treatment of Dr. Manavi and
that respondent No. I sought adjournments in all the cases in which prolonged
D cross-examination was required and he was not in a position to speak
continuously because of severe cough problem. They did not say anything
about the large number of occasions they sought for adjourning the cross-
examination of the complainant.

The State Bar Council obtained a report from its Advocate Member Sri
E B.E. Avhad. That report says that he interrogated the parties and understood
that "the complaint is without any substance." It was on the strength of the
said report that the State Bar Council has dropped further proceedings against
the respondents. The Revision Petition was disposed of by the impugned
order holding that "the Bar Council of Maharashtra was perfectly justified in _)...___
passing the impugned resolution dated 12. I I. I 994 and we see no reason to
F interfere with the same; .no prima facie case is made out against the
respondents and there is no reason to believe that the advocate had committed
professional or other misconduct."

When we heard the argume~ts of Shri PH Pare~, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Vijay S.Kotewal, learned Senior counsel for the
G respondents we felt, apart from the question of professional misconduct of
the respondents, that the Judicial Magistrate, who yielded to all the
procrastinative tactics, should be made answerable to the High Court so that
action could be taken against the Magistrate on the administrative side for ~
such serious laches. We, therefore, called upon the said Magistrate to show
H cause why we shall not make adverse remarks against the Magistrate in our
N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE [THOMAS, J.] 449

judgment. The said Judicial Magistrate has now explained that she had only A
,A._
started working as a regular Magistrate just after completing the training on
6.7 .1993. If so, the Judicial Magistrate would have been a novice in the judicial
service. On that ground alone, we persuade ourselves to refrain from
.., recommending any disciplinary action against the Magistrate. Be that as it
.., may, we now proceed to consider whether the acts attributed to the respondents
amounted to professional misconduct. B
Chapter V of the Advocates Act 1961 (for short "the Act") contains
- ...
provisions for dealing with the conduct of Advocates. The word "misconduct"
is not defined in the Act. Section 35 of the Act indicates that the misconduct
referred to therein is of a much wider import. This can be noticed from the
wordings employed in sub-section (I) of that Section. It is extracted herein:
c
"Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has
reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of
professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal
to its disciplinary committee."
D
The collocation of the words "guilty of professional or other misconduct"
has been used for the puqose of conferring power on the Disciplinary
Committee of the State Bar Council. It is for equipping the Bar Council with
the binocular as well as whip to be on the qui vive for tracing out delinquent
advocates who transgress the norms or standards expected of them in the E
i
discharge of their professional duties. The central function of the legal
profession is to help promotion of administration of justice. Any misdemeanor
or misdeed or misbehaviour can become an act of delinquency, if it infringes
such norms or standards and it can be regarded as misconduct.
r -"...

In Black's Law Dictionary "misconduct" is defined as "a transgression F
of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction
from duty, unlawful behaviour, willful in character, improper or wrong behaviour;
its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency,
impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness."

The expression "professional misconduct" was attempted to be defined G
by Darling J. in A Solicitor exp the Law Society, in re (1912 (1) KB 302) in
the following terms:

---~ "If it is shown that an advocate in the pursuit of his profession has
done something with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded
as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good H
+
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) 3 S.C.R.

A repute and competency, then it is open to say that he is guilty of
professional misconduct."

In RD Saxena v. Bairam Prasad Sharma, [2QOO] 7 SCC 264 this Court
has quoted the above definition rendered by Darling J., which was {
subsequently approved by the Privy Council in George Frier Grahame v.
B Attorney General, AIR 1936 PC 224) and then observed thus:

"Misconduct envisaged in Section 35 of the Advocates Act is not
defined. The section uses the expression "misconduct, professional or
otherwise." The word "misconduct" is a relative term. It has to be
considered with reference to the subject _matter and the context wherein
c such term occurs. It literally means wrong conduct or improper .
conduct."

Advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of misconduct. When
. witnesses are present in Court for examination the advocate concerned has·
D a duty to see that their examination is conducted. We remind that witnesses
who come to the Court, on being called by the Court, do so as they have no
other option, and such witnesses are also responsible citizens who have other
work to attend for eking out livelihood. They cannot be treated as less
respectables to be told to come again and again just to suit the convenience
of the advocate concerned. If the advocate has any unavoidable inconvenience
E it is his duty to make other arrangements for examining the witnesses who
is present in Court. Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of
witnesses who are present in Court even without making other arrangements
for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of advocate's duty to the Court
as that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such
F dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned.
Legal profession must be purified _from such abuses of the Court procedures.
Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct.

. In State of UP v. Shambhu Nath Singh, IT (2001) 4 SC 319 this Court
has deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination
G of witnesses when such witnesses are in attendance. We reminded the Courts
thus:

"We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he
must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the
witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after
H keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and
+
N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE [THOMAS, J.] 451

loss of income. The meagre amount of Bhatta (allowance) which a A
witness may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the
financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that
witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand
at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end
of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive
practice must be reformed by presiding officers of the trial courts and B
it can be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer
concerned has a commitment to duty. No sadistic pleasure in seeing
how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are stranded on
account of the dimension of his judicial powers can be a persuading
factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual C
manner."

- When the Bar Council in its wider scope of supervision over the
conduct of advocates in their professional duties comes across any instance
of such misconduct it is the duty of the Bar Council concerned to refer the
matter to its Disciplinary Committee. The expression "reason to believe" is D
employed in Section 35 of the Act only for the limited purpose of using it as
a filter for excluding frivolous complaints against advocates. If the complaint
is genuine and if the complaint is not lodged with the sole purpose of
harassing an advocate or if it is not actuated by mala jides, the Bar Council
has a statutory duty to forward the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee. E
In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. MV Dabholkar, [1976] 2 SCR 48 a
four Judge Bench of this Court had held that the requirement of "reason to
believe" cannot be converted into a formalised procedural road block, it being
essentially a barrier against frivolous enquiries.

In our opinion, the State Bar Council has abdicated its duties when it F
was found that there was no primafacie case for the Disciplinary Committee
to take up. The Bar Council of India also went woefully wrong in holding that
there was no case for revision at all. In our considered view the appellant
complainant has made out a very strongprimafacie case for the Disciplinary
Committee of the State Bar Council to proceed with. We, therefore, set aside G
the order of the State Bar Council as well as that of the Bar Council of India
and we hold that the complaint of the appellant would stand referred to the
Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council.

Section 36(2) of the Advocates Act reads thus: "Notwithstandir.g
anything contained in this Chapter, the disciplinary committee of the H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) 3 S.C.R.

A Bar Council of India may, either of its own motion or on a report by
any State Bar Council or an application made to it by any person _k·
interested, withdraw for inquiry before itself any proceedings for
disciplinary action against any advocate pending before the disciplinary
committee of any State Bar Council and dispose of the same."

B As the complaint is now, by virtue of this judgment, pending before the
·Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council we consider the question
whether it is appropriate that the Bar council of India takes it up for the
purpose of referring it to its Disciplinary Committee. As the misconduct
alleged is of the year 1993-94 the ends of justice demand that the Disciplinary
C Committee of the Bar Council of India should nowdeal with the complaint.
For that purpose we order that the complaint of the appellant would stand
referred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36 of the Advocates Act.
Now we direct the said Disciplinary Committee to adopt such steps as are
necessary for the disposal of the complaint in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made above.
D
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

S.v.K. Appeal disposed of.

.