the matter of Mr A  an Advocate
The Advocate in person
H N Sanyal Additional Solicitor General of India and T M Sen for the Attorney General of India
September 25 and November 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA C J
The Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court in December 1958
In January 1961 he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court
The proceedings against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in O IV A of the Supreme Court Rules
In March this year the Registrar of this Court received a letter marked Secret  from Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the Department of law  Judiciary to the effect that the Advocate on Record of the Supreme Court had addressed a post card dated January 1 1961 to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra which constitutes a gross case of advertisement and solicitation for work
 The original post card was enclosed with the letter with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to their Lordships may seem fit and proper
The post card which was marked as exhibit A in the proceedings which followed is in these terms Mr A 
Advocate on Record
Supreme Court Office and Residence B9 Model Town Delhi 9
Dated 19 1 61
290 Dear Sir Jai Hind
Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 1950 as amended upto date to appoint an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court as according to this rule no advocate other than an advocate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advocate on Record  You might have got an Advocate on Record in this court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if you so wish and agree
Hoping to be favoured
Thanks Yours sincerely Sd A  To The Minister of Law Government of Maharashtra Bombay
 When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice he directed the Registrar informally to enquire from the Advocate concerned whether the post card in question had been written by him and bore his rubber stamp and signature
The Registrar called him and in answer to his queries the Advocate admitted that the post card bore his rubber stamp and signature and that it bad in fact been dispatched by him
He also informed the Registrar that he had addressed similar post cards to other parties
The Advocate added that he did not realise that in addressing those post cards he was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette
The Chief Justice on receiving the aforesaid information placed the matter before a Committee of three Judges of this Court under r 2 O IV A The Committee considered the matter referred to it and 291 on receiving its opinion the Chief Justice constituted a Tribunal of three members of the Bar Shri Bishan Narain and Shri A Ranganadham Chetty Senior Advocates and Shri I N Shroff Advocate with Shri Bishan Narain as its President for holding the necessary enquiry into the alleged conduct of the Advocate proceeded against
In reply to the notice served on the Advocate he chose to behave in a most irresponsible way by alleging that the complaint in question by the Government of Maharashtra is false mala fide and misconceived
He denied that he had written the letter in question which he characterised as the work of any miscreant
He added further that even if it were proved that the letter in question had been written by him a mere perusal of it would show that there was nothing unprofessional or otherwise objectionable in it and he added further that certainly it is not solicitation of work if one inquires from any person whether it requires or wishes and agrees to have the services of another advocate
The Advocate was examined as witness on his own behalf and the Tribunal put the post card to him
The following questions by the Tribunal and answers by the Advocate will show the determined way in which he denied what he had admitted to the Registrar
Tribunal This post card which has been brought to the notice of the court purports to be from you
Is this the post card which you have written  Witness No Tribunal Has it not gone from your office  Witness No
There is no doubt it bears the seal of my office but it has not been affixed by me
292 Tribunal You say it does bear your name and that the rubber stamp which appears is of your office but that it has not been affixed by you
Witness Yes
Tribunal Is the hand writing which one find on this Postcard your hand writing  Witness No Tribunal And the signature which is at the foot of the letter you say is not your signature
Witness No it is not mine The Tribunal pursued the matter further to find out as to how the post card had purported to emanate from his office and then certain documents marked Exs
B to E were brought on the record with a view to comparing his admitted hand writing in those documents with that of the post card in question
The Tribunal also made him write a letter in the very terms in which the postcard is written with a view to making a comparison of the handwriting on the post card with his admitted writing in identical terms given by him in Court
The Tribunal then confronted him with his admissions made to the Registrar as aforesaid before the proceedings started
The following questions and answers will further indicate his attitude Tribunal In what respects do you find any difference between your normal signature and this signature signature on the post card is shown to him
Witness It appears to be like my signature but it is not my signature
Signature on exhibit A is not my signature
293 Tribunal In connection with this post card did you see the Registrar Supreme Court  Witness Yes he called me
Tribunal When Do you know the date  Witness I do not remember
Tribunal Did you say anything to him  Witness I did not make any statement
He showed me the post card
I told him as I said here that I held not written it somebody else might have written it
Tribunal Did you admit before the Registrar that this letter was written by you  Witness I did not admit it but he told me that if I admitted it the matter might be hushed up
Tribunal Did you say to the Registrar that you did not realise that in so doing you were doing any thing wrong  Witness No
I did not say anything
Tribunal Do you want to produce any evidence  Witness No because I have not done anything so I do not want to produce any evidence
Even if it is found that I have written the post card even then on merits there is nothing in this Case
Finding that the Advocate was adamant in his denial that he wrote the post card or that he had made any statement before the Registrar the Tribunal called the Registrar as a witness and examined him on solemn affirmation
The Registrar are his evidence and fully supported his previous 294 report that the Advocate had made those admissions before him
After recording the evidence oral and documentary the tribunal made the report that inspite of stout denial by the Advocate concerned the Tribunal was satisfied that the post card in question had been written by him
The Tribunal was also of opinion that the Advocate did not realise that in writing the post card he was committing a breach of professional etiquette and of professional ethics
It also remarked that it was unfortunate that the Advocate chose to deny the authorship of the post card
The findings of the Tribunal along with the evidence and record of the case have been placed before us the Advocate on notice has appeared before us and we have heard him
Before us also the Advocate first took up the same attitude as he had adopted before the Tribunal but on being pressed by the Court to make a true statement as to whether he had written the post card and had admitted before the Registrar that he had done so he answered in the affirmative
It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the Advocate had addressed the letter aforesaid to the Government of Maharashtra soliciting their briefs that he had admitted to the Registrar of this Court that he had written the post card and other such post cards to other parties and that he did so in utter disregard of his position as an Advocate of this Court
It is equally clear that his denial of having written the post card and of having subsequently admitted it to the Registrar was again in utter disregard of truth
He has in this Court condemned himself as a liar and as one who is either ignorant of the elementary rules of professional ethics or has no regard for them
In our opinion the Advocate has mischosen his profession
Apparently he is a man of very weak moral fibre
If he is ignorant of the elementary 295 rules of professional
ethics he has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education befitting a member of the profession of law
If he M knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief and even then wrote the post card in question he is a very unworthy member of the learned profession
In any view of the matter he does not appear to be possessed of a high moral calibre which is essential for a member of the legal profession
If anything by adopting the attitude of denial which has been demonstrated to he false in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal he has not deserved well of the Court even in the matter of amount of punishment to be meted to him for his proved misconduct
In our opinion he fully deserves the punishment of suspension from practice for five years
This punishment will give him enough time and opportunity for deciding for himself after deep deliberation and introspection whether he is fit to continue to be a member of the legal profession
In our view he is not
Let him learn that a lawyer must never be a liar


Summary:
Mr A an Advocate on Record of this Court wrote letters soliciting clients
One of such letters a post card was addressed to the Law Minister of Maharashtra and ended as follows You might have got an Advocate on Record in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal is you so wish and agree
To the Registrar of this Court he admitted having written the post card but before the Tribunal stoutly denied having done so
The Tribunal found on evidence that the Advocate had written the post card
When the matter came up before the court the Advocate at first denied having written the post card but on being pressed by the court to make a true statement admitted that he had written the postcard and had admitted that before the Registrar
 Held that it is against the etiquette of the Bar and its professional ethics to solicit briefs from clients and an Advocate who does so must be guilty of grossly unprofessional conduct
There can be no doubt in the instant case that the Advocate concerned had written the post card soliciting briefs
It makes no difference whether he did so in ignorance of this elementary rule of the profession or in disregard of it since his conduct in court showed that he had no regard for truth and consequently he deserved no sympathy of the court and must be suspended