Disposed¶72

The Matter of Mr. 'a' an Advocate v. .

Supreme Court25 Sept 19611961 INSC 275 · [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 2881961 INSC 275

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the matter of Mr. 'A', an Advocate (Supreme Court of India, judgment delivered 2 November 1961 by Sinha, C.J., bench: Subba Rao, Shah, Raghubar Dayal and Mudholkar, JJ.): disciplinary jurisdiction under r. 2, O. IV-A, Supreme Court Rules, 1950; Advocate on Record found guilty of professional misconduct for soliciting briefs by post-card to the Minister of Law, Maharashtra; false denials before the Tribunal and the Court treated as aggravating; punished with suspension from practice for five years. Relevant to Bar ethics, solicitation of briefs, and untruthful conduct in disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Advocate ('A') was punished with suspension from practice for five years. ¶72

The Matter of Mr. 'a' an Advocate versus . — Supreme Court (1962) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Advocate ('A') was punished with suspension from practice for five years.

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether Mr. 'A', an Advocate on Record of the Supreme Court, was guilty of professional misconduct by writing letters soliciting clients/briefs, including a post-card addressed to the Law Minister of Maharashtra. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Beyond doubt the Advocate had addressed the post-card to the Government of Maharashtra soliciting their briefs, and had done so in utter disregard of his position as an Advocate of the Court.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶13

Key takeaways

By his demonstrated-false denials the Advocate condemned himself as a liar and as one either ignorant of the elementary rules of professional ethics or having no regard for them; whether he solicited briefs in ignorance or in disregard of the rule made no difference, and his conduct in court showed he had no regard for truth, deserving no sympathy of the Court.ratio¶70
For his proved misconduct the Advocate fully deserved the punishment of suspension from practice for five years.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Professional misconduct — Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court wrote post-cards soliciting briefs, including one dated 19-1-61 to the Minister of Law, Government of Maharashtra — admitted authorship to the Registrar but denied it before the Tribunal and initially before the Court — Held (Sinha, C.J., for the Court; Subba Rao, Shah, Raghubar Dayal and Mudholkar, JJ. concurring), that soliciting briefs is against the etiquette of the Bar and its professional ethics and constitutes grossly unprofessional conduct; it makes no difference whether done in ignorance or in disregard of the rule; the Advocate's untrue denials showed he had no regard for truth and he deserved no sympathy — suspended from practice for five years. Procedure under r. 2, O. IV-A, Supreme Court Rules, 1950.

¶1

¶2

28S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

¶3

19111

¶4

19111 cannot, therefore, accept either of the two grounds n, Jiyajtnao urged by Mr. Viswanatha S&stri challenging th(• Collon Id ills Ltd. vires of the Act. v. Stott of Madhµ PtaJule The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. MudholkM J.

¶5

App,·al diami .. ed.

¶6

111111

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF MR. 'A' AN ADVOCATE

¶8

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUJIBA RAO, J. c. SHAH, RAOHU11AR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)

¶9

Proft83ional Miaconduct-Adoocate on Record writing Uttcra wliciting bri•f•-lf guilty of profuaional miacondudUnlrulhful comlucl in court-Defect of character-Puniahment-Supremt Cou•I Ru lea, 19a0 (aa amended), 0. IV A, r. 2.

¶10

Mr. A, an Advocate on Record of this Court, wrote letters soliciting clients. One of such letters, a post-card was addres.ed to the Law Minister of Maharashtra and ended as follows,-

¶11

"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,,.

¶12

To the Registrar of this Court he admitted having written the post-card, but before the Tribunal stoutly denied having don' 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 lint denied having written the post-card but on being pressed by the court to make a true statement admitted that he had writren the postcard and had admitted that before the Registrar.

¶13

lldd, that it is against the etiquette of the Bar and its professional ethics to •olicit briefs from clients and an Advocate who docs so must be guilty of gTOSily unprofessional cond1:ct.

¶14

Th•rc can be no doubt in the instant case that the Advocate concerned had written the post-card soliciting bri.Cs. It makes no diffcronce whether he did •o in ingorance 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 •ympathy of the court and must be suspended.

¶15

¶16

(l} S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 289

¶17

DISCIPLINARY JuRISDIOTlON: In the matter of Mr. •A' an Advocate.

¶18

The Advocate in person.

¶19

J!SI

¶20

Mr. ·•'"' 'A~ a11 ""''"' Adl'ttal6 •f

¶21

H. N. 8anyal, Additional Soliciwr-Gerwral uf India .and T .• ~f. Sen, for the Attorney-General of India..

¶22

September 25 and November 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶23

SINHA, C. J.-The Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled a.s an advocate of the Allahabad Hi~h Court in December 1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court. 'fhe proceedings against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in 0. IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules.

¶24

Binlra C. J.

¶25

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 Supremr 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 a.nd solicitation for work." The original post-card was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justfoe and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to their Lordships ma.y seem fit a.nd proper. The post-card, which was marked as Ex:. A in the proceedings which followed, is in these terms :

¶26

Mr. •A'.

¶27

Advocate on Record. Supreme Court, Office a.nd Residence B-9, Model Town, Delhi.9. Dated 19-1-61.

¶28

¶29

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.

¶30

1951

¶31

Tn IN malln of lfr, ·~ M AtiDcitcl

SW.. C.J.

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 tho Supreme Court ae according to this rule 'no advocate other than an advooate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advoc9.te on Record.'

¶36

You might have got an Advocate on Rccor<l in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if yon so wish and agree.

¶37

Hoping to be favoured. Thanks, Y oura sincerely, Sd: •A'

¶38

¶39

The Minister of Law, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.''

¶40

When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, he directed the Registrar informally to enquire from the Advocate conoerned 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 despatched by him. He al80 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, 0. IV-A. The Committee considered the matter referred to it, and

¶41

¶42

(1) S.C.R.

¶43

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 291

¶44

1961

¶45

-j

¶46

on re om vmg its opinion, the Chief Justice const i t11ted a Tribunal of three members of the Bar, Shri Bishan Narain and Shri A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate1, and Shri I. N. Shroft', Advocate, with Shri Bish1m 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 provPd 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 w11s examined as witness on his own behalf 11nd the· Tribunal put the po~t-card to him. The following questions by the Tribunal and answers bv the Advocate will show the determined way in which he denied what he had admitted to the Registrar. ·

¶47

In lhe m•fttr oJ Mr. 'A' a'I Ad1JOtal1

¶48

Sinht1 C. J.

¶49

"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.

¶50

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.

¶51

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

¶52

1961

¶53

In Tlw matur of Mr, 'A' an AJ..c4u

¶54

SitiM C. J.

¶55

Tribune.I : You sa.y it docs bear your name and that the rubber stamp which appears is of your office but that it has not bocn affixed by you.

¶56

\Vitness : Yes.

¶57

Tribunal : IR the hand-writing which one finds on this Post-card your hand-writing ?

¶58

WitneRB : No.

¶59

Tribunal : And the signature which is at the foot of the letter, you say, is not your signature.

¶60

Witness : No, it is not. mine"

¶61

The Tribunal pursued tho matter further to find out as to how the post-card had purported to emanat'3 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 ma.de him write a letter in the verv terms in which the postcard is written, with a viev/ 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 a{oresaid, before the proceedings started. Thti following questions and answers will further indicate his attitude;

¶62

"Tribunal : In what rcs1'ects do you find any difference between your normal signature and this signature (signature on the post-card is shown to him).

¶63

\Vitness: It '1ppears to be like my signature, but it is not my signature. Signature on Ex. A is not my signature.

¶64

( 1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 293

¶65

Tribunal:	Inconnection with this post-card	*1$61*
	did you see the Registrar (Sup- reme Court) ?	*Inthematterof·* .Y'r._'A'anAdvocate_
Witness :	Yes,hecalled me.	SiuhaC.J.
Tribunal:	When? Do you know thedate?
Witness :	I<lonotremember.
Tribunal:	Did you say anything to him?
Witness:	I didnotmake any statement. He showed me the post·card. I told him, as I said here,thatI hadnotwritten it; somebody else might have written it.
Tribunal:	Did you admit before the Rei;is· trarthatthis letter was writt,m byyou?
Witness:	I didnotadmit it,buthe told methatifI admitted it, the mattermight be hushed up.
Tribunal :	Did you saytothe Registrar thatyou didnotrealisethatin so doing you were doing any- thing wrong ?
Witness:	No. I didnotsay anything.
Tribunal:	Do you wanttoproduce any evidence?
Witness:	No, because I havenotdone anything; so, I donotwantto produce any evidence. Evenifit isfoundthatI have written the post-card, even then on merits, thereisnothing in this Case".
Findingthat	the Advocate was adamant in his
denialth<ithe wr madeanystate Tribunalcalled xamined him on avehis evidence	ote the post-card orthathehad ment beforetheRegistrar, the the Registrar as a witness and solemn affirmation. The Registrar andfully supported his previous

¶66

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. '

¶67

J9aJ In tht nl411V r'.f JI,, •A' on Adu1cott Sin!co <:. J.

¶68

report that the Advocat~ had made those admissions before him.

¶69

After recording the evidenc<', ural and documentary, the Tribnna 1 made the report that in spite of stout denial by the Advocate concerned, the Tribunal was satisfied that the post· card in quest.ion had been written by him. The Tribunal was also of opinion that the Advocate did not realis(• that in writing the post-card he \'a,; committing a breach of profc88ional 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 ho had adopted before the Tribunal, but on being preBBed by the Court to make a true statement as to whether be had written the post-co.rd and had admitted before the Registrar that he had done so, he answered in the affirmative.

¶70

It is dear beyond any shadow of doubt that the Advocato had addressed the letter aforesaid to the Government of Maharashtra, soliciting their briefs; that he had admitted to the Registrar ot' this Court that he had written tho post-card and other such post-can.ls to other parties, and that ho 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 ~ub scqucntly admitted it to the Registrar, was again in utter disregard of truth. He hll.B, 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 regiird for them. In our opinion, the Advocate he.a mlsl'hoscn his profeBBion. A ppareu tly he is 11. man of very weak moral fibre. If he is ignorant of the elementary

¶71

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 295

¶72

rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education befitting a member of the profession of law. If he knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief and even then wrote the post-ca.rd in question, he is a very unworthy mem her 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 be falEe 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.

RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL

1961

In flie matter of Mr. 'A' An Advocate

Sinha G. J,

1961

November 2.

STATE OF PUNJAB

(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)

¶82

Jail Admnstration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular confi.nemen,,V f!l•d•ty o(-Rute permitting separate confinement by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894), Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India, Art. 14.

¶83

ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as an undcrtrial prisoner. 9n account of certain jail offences alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Findings of the Tribunal of three members of the Bar (constituted by the Chief Justice under r. 2, O. IV-A, Supreme Court Rules) that the Advocate had written the post-card soliciting briefs, placed before the Court along with the evidence and record of the case.¶69
Tribunal of three members of the Bar (President: Shri Bishan Narain), constituted under r. 2, O. IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules
Prior proceeding
In March 1961 the Registrar of the Supreme Court received a letter marked 'Secret' from the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Department of Law & Judiciary), enclosing the original post-card (Ex. A) addressed to the Minister of Law and alleging a gross case of advertisement and solicitation for work.¶25
Prior proceeding
At the Chief Justice's direction the Registrar informally enquired; the Advocate admitted the post-card bore his rubber stamp and signature, had been despatched by him, that he had addressed similar post-cards to other parties, and said he did not realise he was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette.¶40
Prior proceeding
The Chief Justice placed the matter before a Committee of three Judges of the Court under r. 2, O. IV-A; on receiving the Committee's opinion he constituted the Tribunal of three members of the Bar for the enquiry.¶40
Prior proceeding
Tribunal constituted with Shri Bishan Narain (Senior Advocate) as President, Shri A. Ranganadham Chetty (Senior Advocate) and Shri I. N. Shroff (Advocate) as members.¶46
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal the Advocate denied authorship (alleging the complaint was false, mala fide and misconceived and the post-card 'the work of any miscreant'); documents Exs. B to E and a specimen writing were used for comparison of handwriting; the Registrar was examined and supported his report of the Advocate's admissions; the Tribunal found the post-card was written by the Advocate.¶69
Prior proceeding
Before the Court the Advocate first maintained his denial but, on being pressed to make a true statement, admitted that he had written the post-card and had admitted before the Registrar that he had done so.¶69

The Matter of Mr. 'a' an Advocate v. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Matter of Mr. 'a' an Advocate v. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Immani Appa Rao and Others versus Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi and Ors.

Magiti Sasamal versus Pandab Bissoi

Mool Chand Sharma versus State of Uttar Pradesh

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., and Others versus the Union of India

The Collector of Customs, Madras versus Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Another

Jawahar Lal Burman versus Union of India