Don''t transfer complaints to Bar Council of India for now: HC

: The Madras High Court on

Thursday restrained the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTP) from transferring any of the complaints before it to the Bar Council of India (BCI) until further orders of the court.

The matter relates to a petition from PL Sunder of Madurai who made a complaint against an advocate D Balakrishnan of Madurai alleging that the proceedings on the complaint were kept in pending from November 2019 and further with an apprehension that the BCTP may transfer the case to BCI in New Delhi.

The Division Bench comprising Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice P Velmurugan, in its order, said, From the facts mentioned, it is very clear that the petitioner made a complaint against the advocate on November 16, 2016 to BCTP and a reply was given by the advocate on March 10, 2017."

The bench said this showed there was no fault or wrong on the part of the petitioner, however the matter has been dragged for such a long time.

 

Though a petition was filed by the advocate to dismiss the complaint on October 19, 2019 and a counter filed by the petitioner in November 2019, without disposing of the case it was represented by the BCTP that a note is being prepared to transfer the matter to the file of BCI.

The petitioner herein has not committed any wrong and if the matter is transferred to the file of BCI, the petitioner may not have the money power to travel to New Delhi to contest the proceedings.

Moreover, it is not the fault of the petitioner and if at all, it is only the fault of the BCTP for keeping the matter for more than three years without conducting enquiry and disposing of the matter.

In the instant case, the petitioner has not committed any wrong. Hence, he cannot be unnecessarily dragged to New Delhi.

Hence, the transfer of the proceedings to New Delhi would prima facie do injustice to the petitioner.

The bench stated that there were very many cases which were pending with BCTP which was not exercising its statutory duty and disposing of the complaint within the stipulated period of one year.

Then, the bench directed the BCTP to answer various questions including the number of complaints pending before it as on date and the time of pending.

It further asked the BCI why it was not sitting in respective judicial capitals of the state to dispose of the transferred cases from the respective state.

The bench then on its own impleaded secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, to answer as to how section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 is constitutionally valid, since the provision violates the rights of aggrieved litigants to get justice.

The bench gave notice on behalf of the impleaded respondent to Assistant Solicitor General G Karthikeyan and posted the matter for further hearing to March 6, 2020.