ivil Appeal No 316 ot 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 31121986 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in BCI Transfer Case No 407 of 1985
SS Javali and Raju Ramachandra for the Appellant
Ravinder Bhat N Ganapathy and Promod Swarup for the Respondents 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR J
A hast of questions of seminal significance not only for the Advocate who has been suspended from practising his profession for 3 years on the charge of having withdrawn a suit as settled without the instructions from his client but also for the members of the legal profession in general have arisen in this appeal 1
Appeal under section 38 of the 
1 Whether a charge apprising him specifically of the precise nature and character of the professional misconduct ascribed to him needs to be framed 2 Whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a finding of guilt and a punishment PG NO 365 of this nature can be inflicted on him 3 Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt 4 Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies 5 Whether an Advocate acting bona fide and in good faith on the basis of oral instructions given by some one purporting to act on behalf of his client would be guilty of professional misconduct or of an unwise or imprudent act or negligence simpliciter or culpable negligence punishable as professional misconduct The suit was a suit for recovery of Rs30098 Suit No 6581 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore
It appears that the complainant had entrusted the brief to the appellant which he in his turn had entrusted to his junior colleague respondent No 2 herein who was attached to his Office and was practising along with him at his office at the material time
At the point of time when the suit was withdrawn respondent No 2 was practising on his own having set up his separate office
On the docket of the brief pertaining to the suit the appellant made an endorsement giving instructions to withdraw the suit as settled
A sketch was drawn on the back of the cover to enable the person carrying the brief to the junior colleague to locate his office in order to convey the instructions as per the endorsement made by the appellant
The allegations made by the complainant against the appellant are embodied in paragraphs 1  2 of his complaint 1
The petitioner submits that he entrusted a matter to the Second Respondent to file a case against Shri section Anantaraju for recovery of a sum of Rs30098 with Court costs and current interest in Case No OS 196581 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore
The Petitioner submits that the said suit was filed by the first respondent who was then a Junior of the Second respondent
The petitioner submits that the matter in dispute in the suit was not settled at all and the first respon dent without the knowledge and without the instructions of the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the matter is settled out of Court and got the suit dismissed and he has also received half of the institution court fee within l0 days since the PG NO 366 date of the disposal of the suit
The petitioner submits that he has not received either the suit amount or the refund of court fee and he is not aware of the dismissal of the suit as settled out of court
The petitioner submits that when the case was posted for filing of written statement itself the first respondent has filed such a memo stating that the suit was settled out of Court
The petitioner submits that in fact the respondents did not even inform the petitioner about the dates of hearing and when the petitioner asked the dates of hearing the respondents informed the petitioner stating that his presence is not required in the Court since the case was posted for filing of written statement and therefore 
the petitioner did not attend the Court on that day
The petitioner submits that when he enquired about the further date of hearing the respondents did not give the date and said that they would verify the next date of hearing since they have not attended the case since the case was posted for filing written statement by the defendant
The petitioner submits that when he himself went to the Court and verified he found to his great surprise that the suit is dismissed as settled out of court and latter learnt that even the half of the institution court fee is also taken by the first respondent within 10 days
The version of the appellant may now be unfolded i One Gautam Chand RW3 has been a longstanding Client of the appellant
Gautam Chand had business dealing with the plaintiff Haradara and the Defendant Anantaraju
Besides
Anantaraju executed an agreement dated 981980 to sell his house property to Gautam Chand
He received earnest money in the sum of rupees 35000 from Gautam Chand
Anantaraju however did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated period and during the extended period It was in these circumstances that Gautam Chand RW 3 approached the appellant for legal advice
2 It is the common case of parties that Gautam Chand introduced the complainant Haradara to the appellant and his colleague Advocate respondent No 2 3 The appellant caused the issue of notice dated 161981 exhibit R15 on behalf of Gautam Chand addressed to PG NO 367 the seller Anantaraju calling upon him to execute the sale dead
On the same date a notice was separately issued on behalf ot the complainant Haradara addressed to Anantaraju demanding certain amounts due on the three self  bearer cheques aggregating Rs30098 issued by Anantaraju in course of their mutual transactions
This notice was issued by the Advocate respondent No2 acting on behalf of the complainant Haradara
4 Gautam Chand RW 3 and Haradara PW 1 were friends
Anantaraju was their common adversary
There was no conflict of interests as between Gautam Chand and Haradara
Gautam Chand instructed the appellants and his colleague respondent No 2
Ashok that he was in possession of the said cheques issued by Anantaraju and that no amount was actually due from Anantaraju to the complainant Haradara
Gautam Chand was desirous of stops to induce Anantaraju to execute the sale deed in his favour
5 A suit being OS No 1965 of 1981 was instituted on behalf of the complainant Haradara claiming on amount of Rs 30000 and odd from the defendant Anantaraju on the basis of the aforesaid cheques
It was instituted on 3061981
An interlocutary application was moved on behalf of Haradara by respondent No 2 as his Advocate seeking the attachment before judgment of the immovable property belonging to the defendant Anantaraju
The property was in fact the subject of an agreement to sell between Anantaraju and Gautam Chand RW 3 The Court initially declined to grant an order of attachment
In order to persuade the Court certain steps were taken through the said Gautam Chand
He caused the Publication of a notice stating that the property in question was the subject matter of an agreement between Anantaraju and himself and it should not be dealt with by anyone
The publication of this notice was relied upon subsequently on behalf of the complainant Haradara by his advocate respondent No 2
Ashok in seeking an order of attachment
The Court accepted his submissions and passed the order of attachment
6 Subsequently the defendant Anantaraju executed the sale deed dated 27th Nov 1981 in favour of Gautam Chand
The object of the suit was achieved
The sale deed was in PG NO 368 fact executed during the subsistence of the order of attachment concerning the same property
The plaintiff Haradara has not objected to it at any time
Consistently the appellant had reasons to believe the information of settlement of dispute conveyed by the three parties together on 9121981
7 Gautam Chand RW 3 and the complainant Haradara acted in interest and scoured the attachment of property which was the subject matter of an agreement to sell in favour of Gautam Chand
The suit instituted in the name of the complainant Haradara was only for the benefit of Gautam Chand by reference to his interest in the property
8 The appellant conveyed information of the settlement of dispute by his note made on the docket
He drew a diagram of the location of residence of the respondent No 2 Ashok Advocate
exhibit R 1A at page 14 Additional Documents
The papers were delivered to respondent No 2 Ashok Advocate by Gautam Chand PW 3
9 After satisfying himself respondent No 2 Ashok advocate appeared in Court on 101281 and filed a Memo prepared in his handwriting recording the fact of settlement of dispute and seeking withdrawal of the suit
The Court passed order dated 10121981 dismissing the suit OS No 1965 of 1981
10 Even though the plaintiff Haradara gained knowledge of the disposal of suit he did not meet the appellant nor did he address him for over 1 12 years until May 1983
He did not also immediately apply for the restoration of suit
An application for restoration was filed on the last date of limitation on 1111982
The application Misc
16 of 1982 was later allowed to be dismissed for default on 3071982
It was later sought to be revived by application Misc
No 581 of 1982
Necessary orders were obtained on 1671988
Thus Misc
16 of 1982 Application for restoration of suit is pending in Civil Court
On a survey of the legal landscape in the area of disciplinary proceedings this scenario emerges 1 In exercise of powers under section 35 contained in Chapte V entitled conduct of Advocates on receipt of PG NO 369 a complaint against an Advocate or suo motu if the State Bar Council has reason to believe  that any Advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct
Disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him
2 Neither section 35 nor any other provision of the Act defines the expression  legal misconduct  or the expression misconduct  
3 The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council is authorised to inflict punishment including removal of his name from the rolls of the Bar Council and suspending him from practise for a period deemed fit by it after giving the Advocate concerned and the Advocate General  of the State an opportunity of hearing
4 While under section 421 of the Act the Disciplinary Committee has been conferred powers vested in a Civil Court in respect of certain matters including summoning and enforcing Attendance of any person and examining him on oath the Act which enjoins the Disciplinary Committee to afford an opportunity of hearing  Vide Sec
S to the Advocate does not prescribe the procedure to be followed at the hearing
5 The procedure to be followed in an Enquiry under Section 35 is outlined in of the Bar Council of India Rules 1 made under the authority of section 60 of the Act
6 Rule 81 of the said Rules enjoins the Disciplinary Committee to hear the concerned parties that is to say the complainant and the concerned Advocate as also the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General
It also enjoins that if it is considered appropriate to take oral evidence the procedure of the trial of civil suits shall as far as possible be followed 2
At this juncture it is appropriate to articulate some basic principles which must inform the disciplinary proceedings against members of the legal profession in proceedings under Section 35 of the  read with the relevant Rules 1 Published in Gazette of India on September 6 1975 in Section pages 1671 to 1697
PG NO 370 i essentially the proceedings are quasi criminal in character inasmuch as a Member of the profession can be visited with penal consequences which affect his right to practice the profession as also his honour under Section 353d of the Act the name of the Advocate found guilty of professional or other misconduct can be removed from the State Roll of Advocates
This extreme penalty is equivalent of death penalty which is in vogue in criminal jurisprudence The Advocate on whom the penalty of his name being removed from the roll of Advocate is imposed would be deprived of practising the profession of his choice would be robbed of his means of livelihood would be stripped of the name and honour earned by him in the post and is liable to become a social apartheid
A disciplinary proceeding by a statutory body of the Members of the profession which is statutorily empowered to impose a punishment including a punishment of such immense proportions in quasi criminal in character ii as a logical corollary it follows that the Disciplinary Committee empowered to conduct the enquiry and to inflict the punishment on behalf of the body in forming an opinion must be guided by the doctrine of benefit of doubt and is under an obligation to record a finding of guilt only upon being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
It would be impermissible to reach a conclusion on the basis preponderence of evidence or on the basis of surmise conjucture or suspicion
It will also be essential to con sider the dimension regarding mens rea
This proposition is hardly open to doubt or debate particularly having regard to the view taken by this Court in LD Jaisinghani vs Naraindas N Punjubi wherein Ray CJ speaking for the Court has observed In any case
we are left in doubt whether the complainant s version
with which he had come forward with considerable delay was really truthful
We think that in a case of this nature involving possible disbarring of the advocate concerned the evidence should be of a character which 2
Rule 81 The Disciplinary Committee shall hear the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of India or the Advocate General as the case may be or their Advocate and parties or their Advocate if they desire to be heard and determine the matter on documents and affidavits unless it is of the opinion that it should be in the interest of justice to permit cross examination of the deponents or to take oral evidence in which case the procedure for the trial of civil suits shall as far as possible be followed
 PG NO 371 should leave no reasonable doubt about guilt
The Disciplinary Committee had not only found the appellant guilty but had disbarred him permanently Emphasis added
iii in the event of a charge of negligence being levelled against an Advocate the question will have to be decided whether negligence simpliciter would constitute misconduct
It would also have to be considered whether the standard expected from an Advocate would have to answer the test of a reasonably equipped prudent practitioner carrying reasonable workload A line will have to be drawn between tolerable negligence and culpable negligence in the sense of negligence Which can be treated as professional misconduct exposing a Member of the profession to punishment in the course of disciplinary proceedings
In forming the opinion on this question the standards of professional conduct and etiquette spelt out in Chapter 2 of of the Rules governing Advocates framed under Section 60 3 and Section 491g of the Act which form a part of the Bar Council of India Rules may be consulted
As indicated in the preamble of the Rules an Advocate shall at all times compose himself in a manner befitting his status as an Officer of the Court a privileged member of the community and a gentleman bearing in mind what may be lawful and moral for one who is not a member of the bar may still be improper for an Advocate and that his conduct is required to conform to the rules relating to the duty to the Court the duty to the client to the opponent and the duty to the colleagues not only in letter but also in spirit
It is in the light of these principles the Committee would be required to approach the question as regards th guilt or otherwise of an Advocate in the context of professional misconduct levelled against him
In doing so apart from conforming to such procedure as may have been outlined in the Act or the Rules the Disciplinary Authority would be expected to exercise the power with full consciousness and awareness of the paramount consideration regarding principles of natural justice and fair play
The State Bar Council after calling for the comments of the appellant in the context of the complaint straightway proceeded to record the evidence of the parties
No charge was framed specifying the nature and content of the professional misconduct attributed to the appellant
Nor PG NO 372 were any issues framed or points for determination formulated
The Disciplinary Committee straightway proceeded to record evidence
As the case could not be concluded within the prescribed time limit the matter came to be transferred to the Bar Council of India which has heard arguments and rendered the order under appeal
The questions which have surfaced are 1 Whether a specific charge should have been framed apprising the appellant of the true nature and content of the professional misconduct ascribed to him 2 Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt and the need for establishing the basic allegations were present in the mind of the Disciplinary Authority in recording the finding of guilt or in determining the nature and extent of the punishment inflicted on him 3 Whether in the absence of the charge and finding of dishonesty against him the appellant could be held guilty of professional misconduct even on the assumption that he had acted on the instructions of a person not authorised to act on behalf of his client if he was acting in good faith and in a bona fide manner
Would it amount to lack of prudence or nonculpable negligence or would it constitute professional misconduct Now so far as the procedure followed by the State Bar Council at the Enquiry against the appellant is concerned it appears that in order to enable the concerned Advocate to defend himself properly an appropriate specific charge was required to be framed
No doubt the Act does not outline the procedure and the Rules do not prescribe the framing of a charge
But then even in a departmental proceeding in an enquiry against an employee a charge is always framed
Surely an Advocate whose honour and right to earn his livelihood are at stake can expect from his own professional brethern
what an employee expects from his employer Even if the rules are silent the paramount and overshadowing considerations of fairness would demand the framing of a charge
In a disciplinary proceeding initiated at the level of this Court even though the Supreme Court Rules did not so prescribe in re Shri M  an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India 1956 SCR page 811814 this Court framed a charge after making these observations PG NO 373 We treated the enquiry in Chambers as a preliminary enquiry and heard arguments on both sides with reference to the matter of that enquiry
We came to conclusion that this was not a case for discharge at that stage
We accordingly reframed the charges framed by our learned brother Bhagwati J and added a fresh charge
No objection has been taken to this course
But it is as well to mention that in our opinion the terms of Order IV rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules do not preclude us from adopting this course including the reframing of or adding to the charges specified in the original summons where the material at the preliminary enquiry justifies the same
The fresh enquiry before us in Court has proceeded with reference to the following charges as reframed and added to by us
 It would be extremely difficult for an Advocate facing a disciplinary proceeding to effectively defend himself in the absence of a charge framed as a result of application of mind to the allegations and to the question as regards what particular elements constituted a specified head of professional misconduct
The point arising in the context of the non framing of issues has also significance
As discussed earlier Rule 81 enjoins that the procedure for the trial of Civil suits shall as far as possible be followed   Framing of the issues based on the pleadings as in a Civil suit would be of immense utility
The controversial matters and substantial questions would be identified and the attention focussed on the real and substantial factual and legal matters in contest
The parties would then become aware of the real nature and content of the matters in issue and would come to know l on whom the burden rests 2 what evidence should be adduced to prove or disprove any matter 3 to what end cross examination and evidence in rebuttal should be directed
When such a procedure is not adopted there exists inherent danger of miscarriage of justice on account of virtual denial of a fair opportunity to meet the case of the other side
We wish the State Bar Council had initially framed a charge and later on framed issues arising out of the pleadings for the sake of fairness and for the sake of bringing into forefront the real controversy
In the light of the foregoing discussion the questions arising in the present appeal may now to be examined
In substance the charge against the appellant was that he had withdrawn a suit as settled without the instructions from the complainant
It was not the case of the complainant that PG NO 374 the appellant had any dishonest motive or that he had acted in the matter by reason of lack of probity or by reason of having been won over by the other side for monetary considerations or otherwise
The version of the appellant was that the suit which had been withdrawn had been instituted in a particular set of circumstances and that the complainant had been introduced to the appellant for purposes of the institution of the suit by an old client of his viz RW 3 Gautam Chand
The appellant was already handling a case on behalf of RW 3 Gautam Chand against RW 4 Anantharaju
The decision to file a suit on behalf of the complainant against RW 4 Anantharaju was taken in the presence of RW 3 Gautam Chand
It was at the instance and inspiration of RW 3 Gautam Chand that the suit had been instituted by the complainant but really he was the nominee of Gautam Chand and that the complainant himself had no real claim on his own
It transpires from the records that it was admitted by the complainant that he was not maintaining any account books in regard to the business and he was not an Income tax assessee
In additionthe complainant PW 1 Haradara himself has admitted in his evidence that it was Gautam Chand who had introduce him to the appellant and that he was in fact taken to the office of the appellant for filling the said suit by Gautam Chand
It was this suit which was withdrawn by the appellant
Of course it was withdrawn without any written instruction from the defendant against whom he had filed the suit for recovery of Rs 30000 and odd through Gautam Chand and that he did not know the defendant intimately or closely
He also admitted that the cheques used to be passed in favour of the party and that he was not entitled to the entire amount
He used to get only commission
Since even on the admission of the complainant himself he was taken to the office of the appellant for instituting the suit by RW 3 Gautam Chand and old client of th appellant whose dispute with the defendant against whom the complainant had filed the suit existed at the material time and was being handled by the appellant
The defence of the appellant that he had withdrawn the suit in the circumstances mentioned by him required to be considered in the light of his admissions
The defence of the appellant being that the suit was withdrawn under the oral instructions of the complainant in the presence of RW 3 Gautam Chand and RW 4 Anantharaju and inasmuch as RWs 3 and 4 supported the version of the appellant on oath the matter was required to be examined in this background
Assuming that the evidence of the appellant corroborated by RWs 3 and 4 in regard to the presence of the complainant was not considered acceptable the question would yet arise as to PG NO 375 whether the withdrawal on the part of the appellant as per the oral instructions of RW 3 Gautam Chand who had taken the complainant to the appellant for instituting the suit would amount to professional misconduct
Whether the appellant had acted in a bona fide manner under the honest belief that RW 3 Gautam Chand was giving the instructions on behalf of the complainant required to be considered
If he had done so in a bona fide and honest belief would it constitute professional misconduct particularly having regard to the fact that nO allegation regarding corrupt motive was attributed or established Here it has to be mentioned that the appellant had acted in an open manner in the sense that he had in his own hand made endorsement for withdrawing the suit as settled and sent the brief to his junior colleague
If the appellant had any oblique motive or dishonest intention
he would not have made the endorsement in his own hand
No doubt Rule 19 contained in Section 2 captioned Duty to the clients  provides that an Advocate shall not act on the instructions of any person other than his client or his authorised agent
If therefore the appellant had acted under the instructions of RW 3 Gautam Chand bona fide believing that he was the authorised agent to give instructions on behalf of the client would it constitute professional misconduct Even if RW 3 was not in fact an authorised agent of the complainant but if the appellant bona fide believed him to be the authorised agent having regard to the circumstances in which the suit came to be instituted would it constitute professional misconduct Or would it amount to only an imprudent and unwise act or even a negligent act on the part of the appellant These were questions which directly arose to which the Committee never addressed itself
There is also nothing to show that the Disciplinary Committee has recorded a finding on the facts and the conclusion as regards the guilt in full awareness of the doctrine of benefit of doubt and the need to establish the facts and the guilt beyond reasonable doubt
As has been mentioned earlier no charge has been formulated and framed no issues have been framed
The attention of the parties was not focussed on what were the real issues
The appellant was not specifically told as to what constituted professional misconduct and what was the real content of the charge regarding the professional misconduct against him
In the order under appeal the Disciplinary Committee has addressed itself to three questions viz PG NO 376 i Whether the complainant was the person who entrusted the brief to the appellant and whether the brief was entrusted by the complainant to the appellant ii Whether report of settlement was made without instruction or knowledge of the complainant iii Who was responsible for reporting settlement and instructions of the complainant In taking the view that the appellant had done so probably with a view to clear the cloud of title of RW 3 as reflected in paragraph 22 quoted herein the Disciplinary Committee was not only making recourse to conjucture
surmise and presumption on the basis of suspicion but also attributing to the appellant a motive which was not even attributed by the complainant and of which the appellant was not given any notice to enable him to meet the charge It is not possible to find out as to what made PW 2 to have done like that
As already pointed out the house property which was under attachment had been purchased by RW 3 during the subsistence of the attachment
Probably with a view to clear the cloud of title of RW 3 PW 2 might have done it
This is only our suspicion
Whatever it might be it is clear that RW 2 had acted illegally in directing RW l to report settlement
 In our opinion the appellant has not been afforded reasonable and fair opportunity of showing cause inasmuch as the appellant was not apprised of the exact content of the professional misconduct attributed to him and was not made aware of the precise charge he was required to rebut
The conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Committee in the impugned order further shows that in recording the finding of facts on the three questions the applicability of the doctrine of benefit of doubt and need for establishing the facts beyond reasonable doubt were not realised
Nor did the Disciplinary Committee consider the question as to whether the facts established that the appellant was acting with bona fides or with mala fides whether the appellant was acting with any oblique or dishonest motive whether there was any mens rea whether the facts constituted negligence and if so whether it constituted culpable negligence
Nor has the Disciplinary Committee considered the question as regards the quantum of punishment in the light of the aforesaid considerations and the exact nature of the professional misconduct established against the appellant
PG NO 377 The impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee therefore cannot be sustained
Since we do not consider it appropriate to examine the matter on merits on our own without the benefit of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Committee of the apex judicial body of the legal profession we consider it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee
As observed by this Court in ON Mohindroo vs The District Judge Delhi and Anr Supreme Court Bar Association in paragraph 23 quoted hereinbelow we have no doubt that the Disciplinary Committee will approach the matter with an open mind From this it follows that questions of professional conduct are as open as charges of cowardice against Generals for reconsideration of the conviction of persons convicted of crimes
Otherwise how could the Hebron brothers get their conviction set aside after Charles Peace confessed to the crime for which they were charged and held guilty   We must explain why we consider it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Bar Council of India
This matter is one pertaining to the ethics of the profession which the law has entrusted to the Bar Council of India
It is their opinion of a case which must receive due weight because in the words of Hidayatullah CJ in Mohindroo s case This matter is one of the ethics of the profession which the law has entrusted to the Bar Council of India
It is their opinion of a case which must receive due weight   It appears to us that the Bar Council of India must have an opportunity to examine the very vcxed and sensitive question which has arisen in the present matter with utmost care and consideration
the question being of great importance for the entire profession
We are not aware of any other matter where the apex body of the profession was required to consider whether the bona fide act of an Advocate who in good faith acted under the instructions of someone closely connected with his client and entertained a bona fide belief that the instructions were being given under the authority of his client would be guilty of misconduct
It will be for the Bar Council of India to consider whether it would constitute an imprudent act an unwise act
a negligent act or whether it constituted negligence and if so a culpable negligence or whether it constituted a professional misconduct deserving severe punishment even when it was not established or atleast not PG NO 378 established beyond reasonable doubt that the concerned Advocate was acting with any oblique or dishonest motive or with mala fides
This question will have to be determined in the light of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances taking into account the doctrine of benefit of doubt and the need to record a finding only upon being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
In the facts and circumstances of the present case it will also be necessary to re examine the version of the complainant in the light of the foregoing discussion keeping in mind the admission made by the complainant that he was not maintaining any books of accounts and he was not an Income tax assessee and yet he was the real plaintiff in the suit for Rs30000 and odd instituted by him and in the light of the admission that it was RW 3 Gautam Chand who had introduced him to the appellant and that he was in fact taken to the office of the appellant for filing the suit by RW 3 Gautam Chand
The aforesaid question would arise even if the conclusion was reached that the complainant himself was not present and had not given instructions and that the appellant had acted on the instructions of RW 3 Gautam Chand who had brought the complainant to the appellant s office for instituting the suit and who was a close associate of the complainant
Since all these aspects have not been examined at the level of the Bar Council and since the matter raises a question of principle of considerable importance relating to the ethics of the profession which the law has entrusted to the Bar Council of India it would not be proper for this Court to render an opinion on this matter without the benefit of the opinion of the Bar Council of India which will accord close consideration to this matter in the light of the perspective unfolded in this judgment both on law and on facts
We are reminded of the high degree of fairness with which the Bar Council of India had acted in Mohindroo s case
The Advocate concerned was suspended from practice for four years
The Bar Council had dismissed the appeal
Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition summarily
And yet the whole matter was reviewed at the instance of the Bar Council and this Court was persuaded to grant the review
A passage extracted from Mohindroo s case deserves to be quoted in this connection 37
We find some unusual circumstances facing us
The entire Bar of India are of the opinion that the case was not as satisfactorily proved as one should be and we are also of the same opinion
All processes of the Court are intended to secure justice and one such process is the power of review
No doubt frivolous reviews are to be discouraged and technical rules have been devised to prevent persons from PG NO 379 reopening decided cases
But as the disciplinary committee themselves observed there should not be too much technicality where professional honour is involved and if there is a manifest wrong done it is never too late to undo the wrong
This Court possesses under the Constitution a special power of review and further may pass any order to do full and effective justice
This Court is moved to take action and the Bar Council of India and the Bar Association of the Supreme Court are unanimous that the appellant deserves to have the order disbarring him from practice set aside
We have therefore no doubt that upon the matter being remitted to the Bar Council of India it will be dealt with appropriately in the light of the aforesaid perspective
We accordingly allow this appeal set aside the order of the Bar Council in so far as the appellant is concerned and remit the matter to the Bar Council of India
however wish to make it clear that it will not be open to the complainant to amend the complaint or to add any further allegation
We also clarify that the evidence already recorded will continue to form part of the record and it will be open to the Bar Council of India to hear the matter afresh on the same evidence
It is understood that an application for restoration of the suit which has been dismissed for default in the City Civil Court at Bangalore has been made by the complainant and is still pending before the Court
It will be open to the Bar Council of lndia to consider whether the hearing of the matter has to be deferred till the application for restoration is disposed of
The Bar Council of India may give appropriate consideration to all these questions
We further direct that in case the judgment rendered by this Court or any part thereof is reported in Law Journals or published elsewhere the name of the appellant shall not be mentioned because the matter is still subjudice and fairness demands that the name should not be specified
The matter can be referred to as an Advocate vs The Bar Council or in re
an Advocate without naming the appellant
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
No order regarding costs
Y Lal Appeal disposed of


Summary:
With a view to produce TV Serials based on themes eg national integration Communal harmony against exploitation of child labour equal status for women etc
 Doordarshan invited proposals from producers sponsors
The last date for submitting such projects was 7th May 1986 and it was also made obligatory by Doordarshan that projects should comply with the guidelines prescribed by it
Clause 2 of the guidelines inter alia required that the proposals for sponsored programs should consist of break up of the story in episodes complete synopsis of each episode detailed scenario script of at least one episode etc
As per clause 3 of the guidelines the proposals on receipt by Doordarshan were to be given a reference No and acknowledged
The guidelines also prescribed that if any proposal is not accompanied by any of the documents required by the guidelines that deficiency was to be pointed out to the producer of the proposal and was to be treated complete only when all the requirements contained in the guidelines referred to above are complied with
On the theme of national integration the Petitioner and Respondent No 2 had submitted projects on the life and history of the great urdu poet Mirza Ghalib
The projects submitted by the Petitioner and by another person were not approvedselected for telecast as the same were not found to be either attractive or interesting but the one sent by Respondent No Gulzar was selected
The Petitioner challenged the said action of Doordarshan as arbitrary and based on malice by filing writ petition in the High Court ua 226 of the Constitution praying for a direction to the Union of India and the Doordarshan to accept the script of the Petitioner and eventually to give him the contract
His contention before the High Court was mainly that Respondent No 2 Shri GULZAR had been preferred over the Petitioner by practising discrimination PG NO 282 PG NO 283 nation in the matter of selection of TV Serial even though the Petitioner had submitted his project on 7th May 1986 whilst Respondent No 2 had not
The High Court did not fnd substance in any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner and dismissed the Writ Petition
Against the order of the High Court of 13th July 1988 dismissing the Writ Petition the Petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal ua 136 of the Constitution
Dismissing the petition for Special leave this Court HELD That Respondent No 2 Gulzar had by a letter dated the 4th February 1986 submitted the theme of the matter and Doordarshan had asked him to furnish further details to make the proposal complete and after the proposal was so made complete the same alongwith others was placed for consideration before the Committee
Though the proposals might not have been considered strictly in accordance with the order of precedence yet they were considered fairly or reasonably
285C 286F G That there was obJectivity in the actual consideration of the different proposals and that there was fairness in the decision and that no malice or ill will coloured the decision making process in the case
The Petitioner was not refused proper consideration because Respondent 2 described the petitioner as one who is a  maverick on the contrary the serial submitted by the Petitioner was neither found to be attractive nor interesting
287A B Ram  Shyam Co vs State of Haryana  Ors l985 3 SCC 267 at pp
268 and 269 Haji TM Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corporation AIR 1988 SC 157 at p 161 referred to