In Brief
The Supreme Court quashed frivolous disciplinary proceedings against two advocates initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. In the first case, advocate Rajiv Narula merely identified a representative in old consent terms but never represented the complainant. In the second, advocate Geeta Shastri only attested signatures on an affidavit. The Court held that disciplinary jurisdiction requires a professional relationship between advocate and complainant, and that referral orders must record reasoned findings of misconduct, not merely cryptic satisfaction notes. The judgment emphasized that Bar Councils must apply their minds carefully to prevent harassment of lawyers by disgruntled opponents. Costs of ₹50,000 each were imposed on the Bar Council and complainant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.