In Brief
Advocates Palanisamy and others appealed against the Bar Council of India's decision finding them guilty of professional misconduct and imposing reprimands and fines. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary enquiry was fundamentally flawed because the appellants were not permitted to cross-examine the complainant's witnesses and documentary evidence in vernacular language was not translated or provided to the Committee members. These procedural failures infringed principles of natural justice and vitiated the entire enquiry. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Bar Council's order, declining to order a fresh enquiry given the prolonged pendency since 1997 and the personal nature of the family dispute underlying the complaint.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.