Case details
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 1012
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A. P. Sen, E. S. Venkataramiah, and R. B. Misra, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 20 July 1983
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1977
Applicable Law(s):
Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 35 and 38
Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 – Rule 33
Facts of the case
The appellant, Chandra Shekhar Soni, was an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan and practicing law in the state. He was proceeded against for professional misconduct under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Two primary allegations were made against him, both relating to grave breaches of professional ethics expected of a legal practitioner.
Switching Sides in a Criminal Case:
In the first instance, the appellant was initially retained by the complainant in a criminal matter, in which he appeared before the court on behalf of the complainant. However, in a subsequent development, the appellant accepted the brief of the accused in the same case, thereby effectively switching sides. This act of representing conflicting interests was found to be in violation of Rule 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that an advocate must not accept a case against a party he has previously represented, except with express consent from all concerned parties after full disclosure.
While the State Bar Council of Rajasthan found this conduct unprofessional, it gave the appellant the benefit of doubt, holding that it did not amount to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. However, the Bar Council of India, in its disciplinary review, disagreed with this leniency and held that the conduct indeed amounted to a breach of professional ethics.
Taking Money from a Client for Bribery:
In the second and more serious charge, the appellant was alleged to have accepted Rs. 300 from a client, assuring that he would obtain a favourable radiological report in a criminal matter involving allegations of assault. The appellant had written a letter to Dr. Mangal Sharma, a Radiologist, requesting that a favourable report be issued, and explicitly mentioning that the client's amount was with him and that the matter should be done "positively in his favour."
This letter, presented by the complainant, formed a crucial piece of evidence. Although the appellant tried to argue that the letter was meant for the publication of an advertisement in a local newspaper and was addressed to a different person (Dr. Lodha), the Disciplinary Committees of both the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India rejected this explanation as unsubstantiated and concocted. The defence also failed to produce any evidence of such an advertisement having ever been published.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeal:
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Rajasthan, after considering the evidence and the seriousness of the offence, found the appellant guilty of grave professional misconduct under Section 35 ( c ) of the Advocates Act and imposed a penalty of suspension from legal practice for a period of three years. This punishment was upheld by the Bar Council of India, which further observed that such conduct damages the integrity and reputation of the legal profession.
Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, challenging the findings and the punishment imposed by the Bar Councils.
Issues
Whether switching sides in a case without consent amounted to professional misconduct.
Whether taking money from a client with the intention of bribing a public servant constituted grave professional misconduct.
Whether the concurrent findings of the disciplinary committees warranted interference by the Supreme Court.
Whether the punishment of suspension for three years was excessive.
Arguments
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant (Chandra Shekhar Soni):
Denial of Allegations Regarding Bribery: The appellant vehemently denied the allegation that he had taken Rs. 300 from the client with the intent of bribing a radiologist to secure a favourable report. He asserted that the letter produced by the complainant—which formed the core evidence against him—was misinterpreted and misused.
Alternative Explanation for the Letter: The appellant claimed that the controversial letter was not addressed to Dr. Mangal Sharma, the Radiologist, but rather to Dr. Surinder Singh Lodha, a homeopath and editor of the newspaper Jan Prahari. He argued that the letter was intended for publication of an advertisement, and the expressions like “Your amount is lying with me” and “Please do his work in his favour” referred to the advertisement work, not to any attempt to bribe a doctor.
Supporting Testimony: To support his version, the appellant examined Dr. Surinder Singh Lodha and one Mahipal Kumar, through whom the letter was supposedly transmitted. He also claimed that the X-ray plate referred to in the letter was of a relative suffering from tuberculosis, and not of the complainant.
Plea of Leniency: The appellant also pleaded that he was a junior and inexperienced member of the Bar at the time of the incident (which occurred in 1971). He contended that any lapse on his part should be seen in the light of his limited experience, and urged the Court to consider his youth and lack of maturity as mitigating factors deserving a reduced sentence.
Challenge to the Punishment: The appellant argued that the punishment of three years' suspension from legal practice was too harsh and disproportionate, especially given that no actual bribe was proven to have been given, and that the entire charge was based on a single letter, whose interpretation was contested.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents (Bar Council of Rajasthan and Bar Council of India):
Serious Breach of Professional Ethics: The respondents argued that the appellant had grossly violated the ethical standards expected from an advocate. By switching sides in a criminal case—from complainant to accused—he betrayed the trust of his client and violated Rule 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits an advocate from representing conflicting interests.
Clear Evidence of Bribery Attempt: The respondents maintained that the letter written by the appellant clearly revealed an attempt to influence a public servant, i.e., a radiologist, by requesting a favourable report in exchange for money. This amounted to grave professional misconduct, tarnishing the image of the legal profession.
Failure of Defence Explanation: The disciplinary authorities had already found that the explanation offered by the appellant regarding the letter was false, concocted, and lacking credibility. No advertisement was ever published, and the version involving Dr. Lodha and Mahipal Kumar was found to be an afterthought. The complainant’s account was consistent and supported by documentary evidence.
Need for Deterrence: The respondents submitted that such reprehensible conduct by members of the Bar should be dealt with strictly to uphold public confidence in the legal profession. They argued that the penalty of suspension for three years was justified and necessary as a deterrent against unethical practices.
Limited Scope of Appeal under Section 38: It was also argued that the scope of interference by the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act is limited to cases where the findings of the disciplinary committees are perverse or based on no evidence, which was not the situation in the present case.
Observations of the Supreme Court
On the First Charge – Switching Sides in a Criminal Case: The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the Bar Council of India and held that the appellant’s act of accepting the brief of the accused after having appeared for the complainant amounted to a serious breach of professional etiquette and ethics. The Court emphasized that Rule 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules explicitly prohibits an advocate from representing conflicting interests in the same matter unless there is express consent from all parties after full disclosure of the facts.
The Court found the conduct to be unprofessional and improper, reaffirming the principle that an advocate's paramount duty is to their client, and any conduct undermining that trust compromises the dignity of the legal profession.
On the Second Charge – Attempt to Bribe a Radiologist: The Court gave considerable weight to the letter written by the appellant to the Radiologist, which was produced by the complainant. The content of the letter clearly indicated that the appellant had assured the client that the matter would be favourably managed, and explicitly stated:
"Your amount is lying with me… Please do his work and it should be done positively in his favour."
The appellant’s defence — that the letter was intended for advertisement purposes — was found to be completely untenable and lacking in credibility. The Court noted that:
There was no evidence that such an advertisement was ever published.
The alternative explanation was not corroborated by any independent or reliable source.
The production of the original letter by the complainant seriously undermined the appellant’s version.
The Court found that the appellant not only committed the misconduct but also attempted to mislead the disciplinary authorities by producing false evidence. The appellant’s actions were held to amount to grave professional misconduct, falling squarely within the ambit of Section 35 ( c ) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
On Scope of Interference under Section 38: The Court reiterated that in an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, it would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, unless such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or on conjecture.
In this case, the findings were found to be well-reasoned, based on substantial evidence, and not open to challenge on these limited grounds.
On the Punishment Imposed: While strongly condemning the conduct of the appellant, the Court also took into account mitigating circumstances, particularly that:
The appellant was a junior and relatively inexperienced member of the Bar at the time of the incident (which occurred in 1971).
The punishment of suspension for three years, although appropriate in gravity, might be excessive in light of his youth and lack of maturity.
A reduced punishment would still serve the interests of justice and deter similar misconduct, while also allowing the appellant an opportunity for reform.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.
The finding of guilt for professional misconduct was upheld on both counts.
However, the period of suspension from practice was reduced from three years to one year.
The Court concluded that this reduction would be just and equitable, considering the nature of the misconduct, the evidence on record, and the mitigating factors involved.
Final Order
“Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.”
Conclusion
This case reiterates the high standards of professional ethics expected from advocates and the consequences of deviating from them. The judgment also demonstrates the Supreme Court’s balanced approach in upholding professional discipline while showing leniency based on individual circumstances.