In a recent development, the Supreme Court, on February 5, decided not to interfere in a civil appeal filed by an advocate who had accused a member of the local bar association of assault and interference with his practice at the local court. The incident occurred in Baraipur, West Bengal, leading to a series of legal actions and counter-allegations.

The advocate, who preferred to remain unnamed, claimed that he was subjected to continuous physical and mental torture by members of the local Bar Association. According to his complaint, he was not only physically assaulted but also restrained from practicing before the court by the respondents, who were members of the association.

Following the alleged incident, both parties filed First Information Reports (F.I.R.) against each other. Subsequently, the aggrieved advocate submitted an application under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before the State Bar Council of West Bengal. However, the application was dismissed by the State Bar Council, stating that the matter was already pending in court. The council argued that the rival contentions and allegations should be proved during the trial before the concerned court, making it inappropriate for the State Bar Council to intervene at that stage.

Undeterred by the State Bar Council's decision, the advocate pursued the matter further by appealing to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. Unfortunately, the committee upheld the State Bar Council's decision, thereby prompting the advocate to approach the Supreme Court with a civil appeal.

When the matter was brought before the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, they observed that there was no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Bar Council of India. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, but crucially, it granted the advocate the liberty to file a fresh complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

However, this liberty comes with a condition – the filing of the fresh complaint is subject to the conclusion of the ongoing criminal trial related to the F.I.R.s lodged by both parties.

Case: UTTAM KUMAR HALDER vs. ANIRUDHA ALAM

C.A. No. 000932 - / 2024.