In Brief
The Supreme Court set aside a Bar Council of India disciplinary order reprimanding three advocates for alleged professional misconduct. The appellants challenged the Disciplinary Committee's enquiry as unfair, contending they were not permitted to cross-examine the complainant, who was their brother. The Court held that when serious allegations are investigated, natural justice mandates the right to cross-examine witnesses. Further, the Committee could not have properly analyzed documentary evidence in a vernacular language unfamiliar to its members. These procedural breaches were fatal, vitiating the entire enquiry. Although the complaint originated in 1997 amid family disputes, the Court declined to remit for fresh enquiry, considering the appellants' prolonged suffering and the case's protracted pendency.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.