Alok Kumar Pandey Vs Bar Council of India & Ors.

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 746/2022, CM APPL. 2102/2022 & CM APPL. 18229/2022 ALOK KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naivaidya Parashar, Ms. Medhavi and Ms. Sanskruti Jain, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vishwa Aman Kandwal and Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advs. for R- 3.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R % 04.05.2026

¶10

The petitioner, an advocate, was exonerated by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) in a professional misconduct complaint filed by Respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.11.2011. The complainant challenged this order before the Bar Council of India (BCI). During the pendency of the revision proceedings before the BCI, the petitioner discovered that Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma, who was a member of the BCD when it exonerated the petitioner, was also a member of the BCI Committee hearing the revision. The petitioner objected to Mr. Sharma's participation in the proceedings dated 28.05.2021, 29.08.2021 and 07.11.2021. Mr. Sharma subsequently recused himself on 14.02.2022.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/05/2026 at 12:28:02

¶12

The petitioner raises a fundamental objection that the same member who was part of the decision-making process at the original stage before the BCD should not be a part of the proceedings at the appellate/revisional stage before the BCI.

¶13

Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents tries to point out that the nature of the order dated 28.05.2021, 29.08.2021 and 07.11.2021 do not decide the lis on merit. He submits that all three orders are procedural in nature and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the participation of Mr. Sharma in these procedural proceedings.

¶14

The Court, however, is of the considered opinion that the proceedings dated 28.05.2021, 29.08.2021 and 07.11.2021 stood vitiated merely on the account of the participation of Mr. Sharma in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The foundational principle of natural justice, nemo judex in causa sua (no one shall be a judge in his own cause), as held by the Supreme Court in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand¹ , extends not only to cases of actual bias but also to situations giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Applying this test to the present case, the petitioner could reasonably apprehend bias as Mr. Sharma was part of the original BCD decision dated 25.11.2011.

¶15

The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh² held that if an inferior court or tribunal acts contrary to the rules of natural justice, the superior court may issue certiorari to correct the error, even if the impugned orders are procedural in nature. Therefore, the contention that the

¶16

11957 SCR 575

¶17

2AIR 1958 SC 86

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/05/2026 at 12:28:02

¶20

orders were merely procedural is rejected. Mr. Sharma's subsequent recusal cannot cure the illegality already occasioned by his prior participation. Accordingly, all three orders stand set aside.

¶21

The matter will have to be placed anterior to the proceedings dated 28.05.2021. The BCI shall hence conduct the disciplinary proceedings/revision hearing afresh in accordance with law, ensuring that no member who has previously participated in the proceedings at the original stage before the BCD forms part of the adjudicatory body at the revisional stage before the BCI.

¶22

Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

The BCI, however, shall be at liberty to conduct the disciplinary proceedings/appeal/hearing in accordance with law.

¶24

So far as the construction of the record etc. as has been pointed out by Mr. Sharma is concerned, the disciplinary authority of the BCI shall be at liberty to carry out necessary exercise in that regard afresh.

¶25

Proceedings before BCI be expedited, keeping in mind the fact that the complainant is a senior citizen.

¶26

All rights and contentions are left open.

¶27

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶28

MAY 4, 2026/P

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/05/2026 at 12:28:02

Alok Kumar Pandey v. Bar Council of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Pandey v. Bar Council of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Rajnish Kumar Ex Constable Gd Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Dr. N.Emayavaramban Vs UOI & Ors.

Devanshu Mishra Vs University of Delhi through Its Vice-Chancellor & Ors.

Sh. Binod Kumar Vs (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Jasminder Singh Sikka and Anr. Vs Director of Education and Anr.

Shri Ram Nayan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Vanessa Dougnac Vs Union of India through Joint Secretary Foreigners Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Tsutisangla Pongen & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jamia Millia Islamia Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. and Ors. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Sunil Rani Tiwari and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sunil Walia Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Anr.