CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

CASE STUDY ON

SARDUL SINGH VS. PRITAM SINGH 1999

SYBMITTED TO:

MS. MEENAKSHI

SUBMITTED BY

AISHWARYA SUDHIR

B.A.LLB 10TH SEM

CUB1413125006

1|Page
 Acknowledgement

Writing a project after a research is never an easy task to perform. It is one of the most
significant academic challenges. Though this paper is presented by me yet there are various
other persons who remain in veil and gave all the possible support to complete this project.
This project is a result of hard work incorporated by immense dedication and moral support.
I, hereby, would like to first of all thank my professor MS. MEENAKSHI K who given me
an opportunity to work on this specified project. Due to his support only I successfully
completed this paper. Secondly I would like to add a vote of thanks to my friends who I
discussed the problem with and got to understand the right methodology to be adopted to
accomplish the task. Moreover, there have also been various other factors that helped me
complete this paper. I ask for sorry if there have been any mistakes in the paper.

2|Page
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the topic “sardul singh case” through
articles, books, suggestions and different writings. The aim has been to come to a conclusion
very much indigenous.

Scope and Limitations:

Though the topic “sardul singh vs. pritam singh Case” is an immense project and pages can
be written over the topic but because of certain restrictions and limitations we might not have
dealt with the topic in great detail.

Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

Books

Internet

Articles

Method of Writing and Mode of Citation:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.
The researcher has followed Uniform method of citation throughout the course of this
research paper.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

A lawyer’s profession is meant to be a divine or sacred profession by all means. In every

profession, there are certain professional ethics that need to be followed by every person who
is into such a profession. But there is the fact that professional misconduct is a common
aspect, not only in other professions but also in advocacy also. In simple terms, it means
certain acts done by the persons which seem to be unfit for the profession as well as which
are against certain ethics in this field. The term has been clearly defined in Black’s Dictionary
as, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, improper or wrong behavior. Its synonyms are a
misdemeanour, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or
carelessness.[1] From the definition, it is now clear that the act of professional misconduct is
done purely with an intention of getting unlawful gains. The Advocates Act, 1961 and the
Indian Bar Council play a vital role in providing rules and guidelines regarding the working,
code of conduct and such other matters concerning lawyers and advocates in India.The
attributes of a profession are:

1. Existence of a body of specialized knowledge or techniques.

2. Formalized method of acquiring training and experience.

3. Establishment of a representative organization with professionalism as its goal.

4. Formation of ethical codes for the guidance of conduct.

5. Charging of fees based on services but with due regards to the priority of service over
the desire of monetary rewards

4|Page
Misconduct means any acts which are unlawful in nature even though they are not inherently
wrongful. Before the Advocates Act, 1961, we had the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. There
is no definition given for the term ‘misconduct’ in the Act, but the term ‘unprofessional
conduct’ is being used in the Act. Some of the instances of professional misconduct are as
follows:

 Dereliction of duty

 Professional negligence

 Misappropriation

 Changing sides

 Contempt of court and improper behaviour before a Magistrate

 Furnishing false information

 Giving improper advice

 Misleading the clients in court

 Not speaking the truth

 Disowning allegiance to the court

 Moving application without informing that a similar application has been rejected by
another authority

5|Page
  Suggesting to bribe the court officials

 Forcing the prosecution witness not to say the truth

This case is a case of professional misconduct which loudly speaks that a misconduct of an
advocate cannot be taken lightly as being an advocate is such a noble work and its duty of an
advocate to maintain the dignity and peace of court. In this case an appeal filed by a
complainant against orders passed by the Bar Council of India on 27.4.92 in a review petition
filed by the first respondent-advocate whereby the review was allowed and the order passed
by the Bar Council of India dt. 4.10.1991 was set aside and the order of the Delhi Bar
Council dt. 25.90 was restored.

In this appeal, notice was ordered on 1.11.93 and the first respondent was served and he also
filed a counter. Thereafter the petitioner complainant filed a rejoinder dt.18.3.94. The matter
came up for hearing in this court on 29.1.99 and was heard for considerable time when
neither the first respondent nor his counsel Mr. N.S. Bisht were present. After more than an
hour and half the said counsel appeared and represented that the file was taken away by the
first respondent from him two months earlier on the ground that the first respondent wanted
to engage another counsel and thereafter no instructions were given to him (Mr. Bisht). In
these circumstances, we adjourned the matter and directed fresh notice to the first respondent
at house no. 190 first floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi and informed him that if he does not
appear the case would be proceeded ex- parte. The office has now filed a report dt.8.2.99 that
this court's order dt. 21.1.99 has been complied with and notice was issued to the first
respondent and acknowledgement was also received. It is further stated that none is appearing
on behalf of the first respondent. After some adjournments, the matter has come up again
today and neither the first respondent nor his counsels are present. Therefore, we have no
choice but to dispose of the matter upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant and taking into account the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent and the
further rejoinder filed by the appellant.

6|Page
Name of the case

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors 1999

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

Name of the parties

SARDUL SINGH PETITIONER

PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:

M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

7|Page
FACT OF THE CASE

The facts of the case are that on 29.11.1984 the Bar Council of Delhi held Sri Pritam Singh
the first respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a
period of three years. The first respondent filed an appeal in this court and obtained stay of
the said order of the Bar Council of Delhi.1 The appeal preferred by the first respondent
before the Bar Council of India was dismissed on 13.12.1986 and a notification was issued on
22.1.1987, the operative portion of which reads as follows :

"Therefore Shri Pritam Singh, Advocate enrolled that his counsel YD No. D/300 by 1.9.1983
is suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of three years from the expiry of
16.9.1986."

This notification dt. 22.1.1987 was communicated among others to the first respondent as is
disclosed from the said notification itself.

1
Retrieved on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460739/

8|Page
The appellant filed a complaint before the Delhi Bar Council that notwithstanding the order
of suspension of the first respondent for the period from 16.9.1986 to 16.9.1989, the first
respondent continued to practise in violation of the order of the Bar Council of India and even
after the above notification and that he thereby committed fresh misconduct which was liable
to be punished. The first respondent filed a reply before the Bar Council of Delhi and
thereafter, an order was passed on 2.5.90 by the Bar Council of Delhi holding the respondent
guilty of professional is conduct inasmuch as he continued to practise during the period of
suspension by another name "P.S. Madan" instead of "Pritam Singh". One other matter in
regard to which the Delhi Bar Council held him guilty states was that the first respondent had
concealed material facts at the time of his enrolment, in regard to an earlier conviction by a
criminal court. It was proved that the first respondent was convicted for an offence under
Narcotics Drugs Act and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. (In fact he was earlier in
service and was compulsorily retired.) The Delhi Bar Council noticed that the first respondent
was convicted by the Court of Mr. T.S. Oberoi on 4.12.1074 but the enrolment form filled by
the first respondent did not disclose the said fact. The Delhi Bar Council discussed the oral
evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant (appellant), namely CW 1 to 4 of whom three
were employees of the courts wherein the first respondent had filed a vakalatnama or was
appearing during the period of suspension from 16.9.1986 to 16.9.1989. The relevant copies
of court records evidencing the fact that the first respondent was practising during this period
were marked as CW1/A, CWI/B, CW1/C, CW1/D, CVVI/E, CW1/F, CW2/A & CW2/B by
the Delhi Bar Council and referred to in its order. It was also noticed that the first respondent
had changed his name while practising during the said period as "P.S. Madan". The final
finding of the Delhi Bar Council reads as follows ;

"After hearing the parties and perusing the record, we have given our thoughtful
consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case and have come to the conclusions
that the respondent did file petition and vakalatnama during the period of suspension in the
matter of Smt. Savitai Devi and also suppressed the fact of his conviction from the court of
Shri T.S. Oberoi in the enrolment form and the complainant has successfully proved his case
against the respondent on both sides."

9|Page
It may here be mentioned that when the complainant-appellant examined the above witnesses
CW1 to CW4, the first respondent did not choose to cross examine the said witnesses.
However, the Delhi Bar Council when it came to the question of punishment felt [hat
`admonition' of the first respondent would be sufficient punishment and passed an order of
admonition and directed that the same be entered in the rolls.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment awarded to the first respondent, the appellant-
complainant filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India by its
order dt. 4.10.91, came to the conclusion that the two findings of the State Bar Council were
supported by evidence, that the first respondent was guilty of suppression of facts relating to
his conviction at the time when he was enrolled and that the first respondent was also
practising during the period between 16.9.1986 to 16,9.1989 in violation of the prohibition
contained in the earlier order of the Bar Council of India dt. 13-12.1986 under a different
name P.S. Madan rather than as Pritam Singh. The Bar Council of India then proceeded to go
into the quantum of punishment and it felt that the appellant should not have been let off with
an admonition but that he should have been suspended again from practice for a period of
three years from the date of the order. The Bar Council of India passed an order suspending
him from practice for a period of three years from 4.10.1991, The first respondent instead of
filing an appeal before this Court, filed a review application under Section 44 of the
Advocates Act before the Bar Council of India. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed
by the Bar Council of India on 27.4.92, setting aside the earlier order dt. 4.10.1991 and
restoring the order of admonition passed by the Delhi Bar Council. In the order of review, the
Bar Council of India observed that the suppression of facts relating to conviction, at the time
of enrolment, was not specifically referred to in the complaint filed by the appellant before
the Delhi Bar Council and should not have been gone into. So far as the violation of the order
of the suspension of practice was concerned, the Bar Council of India observed that the
matter related to the filing of vakalatnama and a petition only in the case of Smt. Savita Devi
and was therefore a single and solitary act. In respect of the first respondent practising in a
different name namely, P.S. Madan. The Bar Council observed as follows :

"Whether he has signed in the name of Pritam Singh Madan or P.S. Madan is not relevant."

10 | P a g e
It is the above order dated 27.4.92 that is in appeal before us. We have heard the learned
counsel for the-appellant. As already stated, the first respondent has chosen to remain ex-
parte. We have perused the counter filed by him and also the rejoinder filed by the appellant.

It will be noticed that though the documents filed before the Delhi Bar Council and marked as
evidence related to Smt. Savita Devi, the cases were four in number as is disclosed from the
order of the Delhi bar Council dt. 2.5.90, namely, Case No. 500/90 (Smt. Savita Devi v.
Rewa Devi), Suit No. 501/90 original Suit No. 376/88 Smt. Savita Devi v. Islamttddin, Suit
No. 502/90 Smt. Savita Devi v. Ram Chandra, Case No. 37/88 Smt, Savita Devi v. Jaydev. It
is therefore clear that though the case related to one person, Smt. Savita Devi the cases were
four in number. The Bar Council of India, therefore was not right in treating the breach as a
solitary instance.

11 | P a g e
In fact, learned counsel for the appellant stated that there were a large number of other such
cases of which a list was filed in this court. We find that about 15 cases were mentioned in
that list but we are not taking them into account inasmuch as it is admitted in the written
submissions filed by the appellant before the Delhi Bar Council in para 11, that the
documents relating only to the above four cases pertaining to Savita Devi were exhibited
through witnesses. We are, therefore, of the view that the Bar Council of India in the order
under review was not right in treating the case as a single instance ignoring the fact that there
were four cases pertaining to Savita Devi in which the first respondent had filed the
vakalatnamas or appeared in the courts during the relevant period.Further in regard to the
suppression of facts relating to his conviction, the Bar council of India in its review order
committed yet another serious mistake. Though the issue relating to his conviction was not
specifically raised in the original complaint there were two issues framed by the Delhi Bar
Council. One of them related to the suppression of facts relating to this conviction. Evidence
was allowed to be led and the documents pertaining to the first respondent's conviction were
marked as exhibits. The first respondent had opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in
relation to the documents pertaining to his conviction but he did not even choose to cross
examine the witnesses. Nor did he produce any evidence to disprove that he was convicted. It
is well-settled that notwithstanding the absence of pleadings before a court or authority, still
if an issue is framed and the parties were conscious of it and went to trial on that issue and
adduced evidence and had an opportunity to produce evidence or cross examine witnesses in
relation to the said issue, no objection as to want of specific pleading can be permitted to be
raised later. The Bar Council of India therefore in the review order erred ignoring in the
finding of the Delhi Bar Council on the question of the suppression of facts relating to
conviction of the first respondent. Yet another serious mistake committed by the Bar Council
of India in the review order was that it had not given any serious consideration to the
respondent changing his name from "Pritam Singh" to "P.S. Madan and practising under the
latter name. Such a conduct clearly disclosed an intention to hoodwink the Bar Council of
India which had earlier suspended him from practise for three years. Further inasmuch as the
notification regarding suspension was specifically communicated to him as stated earlier, it
was not permissible for the respondent to plead ignorance of the order of suspension and
continue to practise during the period of prohibition.

12 | P a g e
In the initial order passed by the Bar Council of India on 4.10.91, in the appeal preferred by
the appellant, the Bar Council of India had given adequate reasons for the suspension for
three years. It was stated :

"Now coming to the question of awarding punishment, we are unable to agree with the state
bar Council. If persons found guilty of professional misconduct and on whom, punishment of
suspension from practice has been imposed, continue to practice in courts, the same has to be
viewed seriously. The punishment if any has to be undergone in letter and spirit. The same
cannot be got over by practising in courts under a different name. The fact that he has been
practising under a different name other than his correct name, makes it all the more serious.
The same cannot be viewed lightly and the guilty cannot be let off the hook with warning and
reprimand.

ISSUE RAISED

Whether the working of respondent during the period of suspension is an offence or not?

13 | P a g e
JUDGEMENT

In our view the misconduct on the part of the first respondent was very grave and the Bar
Council of India in its initial order dt. 4.10.91 was perfectly justified in imposing the
punishment of suspension for three years. The manner in which the Bar Council of India in
the review order had gone into the question of misconduct as well as the quantum of
punishment in our opinion, was very casual and unsatisfactory. It had not given enough
seriousness to the two items of misconduct proved against the first respondent and
particularly in his violating an order of the Bar Council of India itself and in practising in a
different name throughout the relevant period. Supreme court direct that a fresh order of
prohibition of three years from practise should be issued by the Bar Council of Delhi by way
of a notification in the prescribed manner and to publish the same and also see that it is
served personally on the first respondent. It will be for the Bar Council of Delhi to fix the
date from which the fresh period of prohibition will start and up to what date it will run,
covering three years. After the Bar Council of Delhi issues the notification and serves the
same on the first respondent, the same shall be reported to this Court. The matter may be
listed after receipt of the letter from the Bar Council of India.

14 | P a g e
RATIO DISENDAI

The Supreme Court directed the issue of fresh order of prohibition for three years from
practice as the misconduct on the part of the respondent was very serious. 2 In our view the
misconduct on the part of the first respondent was very grave and the Bar Council of India in
its initial order dt. 4.10.91 was perfectly justified in imposing the punishment of suspension
for three years. The manner, in which the Bar Council of India in the review order had gone
into the question of misconduct as well as the quantum of punishment in our opinion, was
very casual and unsatisfactory. It had not given enough seriousness to the two items of
misconduct proved against the first respondent and particularly in his violating an order of the
Bar Council of India itself and in practising in a different name throughout the relevant
period. .

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the Bar Council of India passed in review
dt. 27.2.92 and restore the order of the Bar Council of India dt. 4.10.91. We direct that a fresh
order of prohibition of three years from practise should be issued by the Bar Council of Delhi
by way of a notification in the prescribed manner and to publish the same and also see that it
is served personally on the first respondent. It will be for the Bar Council of Delhi to fix the
date from which the fresh period of prohibition will start and upto what date it will run,
covering three years. After the Bar Council of Delhi issues the notification and serves the
same on the first respondent, the same shall be reported to this Court. The matter may be
listed after receipt of the letter from the Bar Council of India.

2 Retrieved on: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/professional-misconduct-by-lawyers-in-india-1621-1.html

15 | P a g e
OBIOTODICTA

Advocacy is a noble profession and an advocate is the most accountable, privileged and
erudite person of the society and his act are role model for the society, which are necessary to
be regulated.3 Professional misconduct is the behaviour outside the bounds of what is
considered acceptable or worthy of its membership by the governing body of a profession.
Professional misconduct refers to disgraceful or dishonourable conduct not befitting an
advocate. Chapter V of the Advocate Act, 1961, deals with the conduct of Advocates. It
describes provisions relating to punishment for professional and other misconducts. Section
35(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961, says, 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 it disciplinary committee. Generally
legal profession is not a trade or business, it’s a gracious, noble, and decontaminated
profession of the society. Members belonging to this profession should not encourage
deceitfulness and corruption, but they have to strive to secure justice to their clients. The
credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members
of the profession conduct themselves. It’s a symbol of healthy relationship between Bar and
Bench. Section 49 of the advocate’s act 1961 empowers the Bar Council of India to frame
rules regulating standards of professional conduct. Accordingly various duties are prescribed
for the advocates some of them are highlighted below.

No advertising or soliciting work, it is against an advocate’s code of ethics to solicit or

advertise work and amounts to a misconduct on the part of the advocate. Both direct and
indirect advertising is prohibited. An advocate may not advertise his services through
circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communication or interviews not warranted by
personal relations. Similarly, the following forms of indirect advertising are prohibited. The
provisions of Section 35 of the Advocates Act deal with professional misconduct of lawyers
and advocates in India, which read as:

3Retrieved on:http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1665

16 | P a g e
A person is found guilty of professional misconduct; it shall refer the case to a disciplinary
committee, shall fix a date of hearing and issue a show cause notice to the Advocate and the
Advocate General of the State. The disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council, after
being heard of both the parties, may:

Dismiss the complaint, or where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State
Bar Council, directs that proceedings be filed;

Reprimand the advocate;

Suspend the advocate from practice for such a period as it deems fit;

Remove the name of an advocate from the state roll of advocates.

Misconduct is of infinite variety; this expression must be understood in a broad meaning,

such that it extends the meaning under natural law, and there is no justification for restricting
their natural meaning. Section 49 of the Advocate Act empowers the Bar Council of India to
frame rules and standards of professional misconduct. Under the Act, no person has a right to
make advertisement or soliciting; it is against advocate’s code of ethics. He is also not
entitled to any advertisement through circulars, personal communications or interviews, he is
not entitled to demand fees for training and to use name/service for unauthorized purposes.

17 | P a g e
CASE ANALYSIS

The provisions of Section 35 of the Advocates Act deal with professional misconduct of
lawyers and advocates in India, which read as:

A person is found guilty of professional misconduct; it shall refer the case to a disciplinary
committee, shall fix a date of hearing and issue a show cause notice to the Advocate and the
Advocate General of the State.4 The disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council, after
being heard of both the parties, may:

Dismiss the complaint, or where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State
Bar Council, directs that proceedings be filed;

 Reprimand the advocate;

 Suspend the advocate from practice for such a period as it deems fit;

 Remove the name of an advocate from the state roll of advocates.

AIR 1995 SC 2348.

4

18 | P a g e
Misconduct is of infinite variety; this expression must be understood in a broad meaning,
such that it extends the meaning under natural law, and there is no justification for restricting
their natural meaning. Section 49 of the Advocate Act empowers the Bar Council of India to
frame rules and standards of professional misconduct. Under the Act, no person has a right to
make advertisement or soliciting; it is against advocate’s code of ethics. He is also not
entitled to any advertisement through circulars, personal communications or interviews, he is
not entitled to demand fees for training and to use name service for unauthorized purposes.
Contempt of court may be defined as an offense of being disobedient or disrespectful towards
the court or its officers in the form of certain behaviour that defies authority, justice, and
dignity of the court. In various cases involving contempt of court, the court held that if any
advocate or legal practitioner is found guilty of the act of contempt of court, he/she may be
imprisoned for six years and may be suspended from practicing as an advocate (In re Vinay
Chandra Mishra)5.The court also held that license of the advocate to practice a legal
profession might be canceled by the Supreme Court or High Court in the exercise of the
contempt jurisdiction. There are many other landmark judgments regarding the cases
involving professional misconduct of the advocates. In the case of V.C. Rangadurai v.
D.Gopalan,6 the court looked into the matter of professional misconduct in such a way that
the decision was made in a humanitarian manner, considering the future of the accused in this
case. The court held that “even so justice has a correctional edge, a socially useful function,
especially if the delinquent is too old to be pardoned and too young to be disbarred.
Therefore, a curative, not cruel punishment has to be delivered in the social setting of the
legal profession”. The court then gave the decision in such a way that it looked at each and
every aspect concerning the case as well as the parties concerned. It adopted a deterrent was
of justice mechanism so that the accused person is awarded certain punishments but also
provided a warning towards such other people who intend to commit acts of a similar nature.
The judgment turned out to be a landmark in cases concerning professional misconduct as it
delivered an effective judgment and but did not jeopardize the future of the accused person.
In various other cases like J.S. Jadhav v. Musthafa Haji Muhammed Yusuf,7 the court
delivered the decision in such a way that it created a notion in the minds of the wrongdoers
that offenders will be punished accordingly.

5
Air 1998 sc406
6
Air 1994 sc 321
7
Air 1998 sc 543

19 | P a g e
Sambhu Ram Yadav V/S Hanuman Das Khatry8:

A complaint filed by appellant against respondent. Advocate before BAR COUNCIL of

Rajasthan was referred to the disciplinary committee of BAR COUNCIL of Rajasthan,
The complaint was that the respondent while appearing as a council in a suit pending in a
civil court wrote a letter to MAHANT RAJGIRI ( his client) and stated that his another client
told him that the concerned judge accepts bribe and he has obtained several favourable orders
in his favour and for that reason he( the client) should sent him a sum of ₹10,000 , so through
that said client, the suit got decided in favour of MAHANT RAJGIRI.
The state BAR COUNCIL noticed that the respondent admitted to the contents of letter as
true and come to a conclusion that he has MIS-CONDUCTED. COURT held him guilty of
professional misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He was also been
suspended from his practice for a period of 2 years.

This ORDER was challenged,but the disclosure of BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA enhanced the
punishment and directed that the name of the respondent must be stacked off from the role of
advocates and thus debar him permanently from practice.
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that high standard of morality is required from
lawyer more from a person who was in the profession since last 50 years. SUPREME
COURT also held that the court has no hesitation in setting aside the order given by BAR
COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN and restoring the ORIGINAL as given by Bar Council of India
dated: 31st July, 1999.The Supreme Court, considering the finding of the Rajasthan Bar
Council says that the legal profession is not a trade or business. Advocates have the particular
duty to sustain the integrity of the profession and to discourage corruption to ensure that the
justice is secured.

8
AIR 1999 SC 992

20 | P a g e
Noratanmal Chaurasia V/s M.R. Murli9

In this case The Supreme court says that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates
Act, 1966 but misconduct envisions breach of discipline. An advocate assaulted and kicked
the complainant and asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case. The Supreme Court
held that a lawyer is obliged to observe the norms of behaviour anticipated for him and his
behaviour was unfit for an advocate.

Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 April, 199810

In case the Bar Council, even after receiving 'reference' from the court, fails to take action
against the concerned advocate, this court might consider invoking its powers under Section
38 of the Act by sending for the record of the proceedings from the Bar Council and passing
appropriate orders. Of Course the appellate powers under Section 38 would be available to
this Court only and not to the High Courts. We, however hope that such a situation would not
arise.

9
AIR 1996 SC 207
10
AIR 1998 SC 198

21 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

The role of the lawyers in the society is of great importance. They being part of the system of
delivering justice holds great reverence and respect in the society. Each individual has a well-
defined code of conduct which needs to be followed by the person living in the society. A
lawyer in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to his
opponent, a duty to the court, a duty to the society at large and a duty to himself. It needs a
high degree of probity and poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous stand,
more so, when there are conflicting claims. While discharging duty to the court, a lawyer
should never knowingly be a party to any deception, design or fraud. While placing the law
before the court a lawyer is at liberty to put forth a proposition and canvass the same to the
best of his wits and ability so as to persuade an exposition which would serve the interest of
his client and the society.

The advocate, as an officer of the Court, also has the responsibility to render services of
sound quality. Lapses in services in the nature of absence when the matters are called out, the
filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings – many times even illegible and without
personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to
remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties are not merely
professional omission. They amount to positive dis-service to the litigants and create
embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the
disposal of matters, and detrimentally affects the entire judicial system.

Furthermore, as the officers of the court the lawyers are required to uphold the dignity of the
judicial office and maintain a respectful attitude towards the Court. This is because the Bar
and the Bench form a noble and dynamic partnership geared to the great social goal of
administration of justice, and the mutual respect of the Bar and the Bench is essential for
maintaining cordial relations between the two. It is the duty of an advocate to uphold the
dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into
disrepute, and ensure that at no point of time, he oversteps the limits of propriety.

22 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

Dr. Kailash Rai, Legal ethics accountiblity for lawyers and bench bar relations, central law

publication

Tek Chand, The Law of Contempt of Court and of Legislature, 2nd edition, the University
Book Agency, Allhabad, 1949

WEB SOURCES:

www.ipleader.com

www.learningoflawblogpost.com

http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v1ch7.htm.

www.flonnet.com/fl1810/18101000.htm.

23 | P a g e