The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of natural justice: disciplinary proceedings against an advocate cannot proceed when the complainant has unequivocally withdrawn the complaint and expressed full satisfaction with the advocate’s conduct. This judgment underscores that the very foundation of such proceedings - the complainant’s grievance - must remain alive and substantiated. Once that is extinguished, the state’s machinery cannot continue to punish based on a dead dispute.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-complainant, Navrang Singh, was accused in a criminal FIR under Sections 451, 323, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After reaching a compromise with the complainant, he engaged the appellant-advocate to file a petition for quashing the FIR in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court initially quashed the FIR on 28th September 2018, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000 as costs. The costs were not deposited within the stipulated time, leading the High Court to recall its order on 16th November 2018 and revive the criminal proceedings.
Procedural History
- 28th September 2018: High Court quashes FIR subject to deposit of Rs.10,000
- 16th November 2018: High Court recalls quashing order due to non-deposit of costs
- 14th January 2020: High Court restores quashing petition, enhances cost to Rs.50,000
- 2nd March 2021: High Court waives enhanced cost after settlement
- 12th December 2022: High Court finally quashes FIR after cost deposit
- 15th December 2022: Respondent files sworn affidavit withdrawing complaint and expressing satisfaction
- 4th April 2025: Disciplinary Committee of BCI finds advocate guilty of misconduct and imposes Rs.1 lakh penalty
Relief Sought
The appellant-advocate seeks setting aside of the BCI’s order holding him guilty of professional misconduct, arguing that the complaint was withdrawn and the dispute resolved before adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 can continue against an advocate after the complainant has filed a sworn affidavit withdrawing the complaint and affirming satisfaction with the advocate’s services.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness demand that a disciplinary proceeding abates when the complainant, who initiated it, voluntarily withdraws the complaint and confirms that no grievance remains. Reliance was placed on State Bar Council of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar and In re: S. R. Batra, which hold that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial and must be grounded in a live controversy. The affidavit filed on 15th December 2022 was conclusive evidence that the dispute had been resolved.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel conceded that the affidavit was duly sworn and acknowledged the complainant’s satisfaction. However, he contended that the BCI had a duty to investigate professional lapses regardless of the complainant’s stance, citing the public interest in maintaining professional standards. He argued that the advocate’s failure to deposit costs on time constituted negligence, irrespective of subsequent resolution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous review of the procedural posture and the nature of disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act. It emphasized that such proceedings are not punitive in the criminal sense but are designed to protect the integrity of the legal profession. Crucially, the Court held that the complainant’s withdrawal and satisfaction are not mere formalities - they are substantive determinants of the proceeding’s viability.
"The impugned judgment neither adverts to the affidavit filed by the respondent-complainant nor deals with the categorical withdrawal of allegations and the expression of satisfaction with the professional conduct of the appellant-advocate."
The Court found that the BCI’s order was legally unsustainable because it proceeded on bald allegations without examining the complainant on oath, without affording the advocate the right to cross-examine, and without considering the decisive affidavit that extinguished the basis of the complaint. The Court observed that a disciplinary body cannot act as a vigilante when the aggrieved party has forgiven and moved on. The failure to appreciate this rendered the entire adjudication a violation of audi alteram partem and rendered the finding of misconduct arbitrary.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court set aside the BCI’s order holding the advocate guilty of professional misconduct. The Court held that once a complainant withdraws a disciplinary complaint and affirms satisfaction with the advocate’s conduct, the substratum of the proceeding ceases to exist, and continuation of proceedings violates natural justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Withdrawal of Complaint Abates Disciplinary Proceedings
- Practitioners must immediately file a copy of the complainant’s sworn affidavit of withdrawal in any pending disciplinary matter
- Bar Councils and Disciplinary Committees must treat such affidavits as conclusive evidence of resolution unless fraud or coercion is proven
- No penalty can be imposed if the complainant’s grievance is no longer alive
Due Process Is Non-Negotiable in Professional Misconduct Cases
- Disciplinary bodies cannot rely on unverified allegations; evidence must be led and tested
- The right to cross-examine the complainant is mandatory under Section 35 and Article 14
- Failure to examine witnesses renders findings legally void
Satisfaction of the Client Overrides Technical Lapses
- Minor procedural lapses, such as delayed cost deposits, cannot be converted into professional misconduct if the client is satisfied
- Advocates are not liable for consequences beyond their control if they act in good faith and resolve issues promptly
- Courts will not permit disciplinary machinery to override the autonomy of the complainant-client relationship
