Jural Relationship Between Complainant & Advocate Necessary to Invoke Disciplinary Jurisdiction for Professional Misconduct: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that for a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act alleging professional misconduct, a jural or professional relationship between the complainant and the advocate must generally exist. Without such a relationship, disciplinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. The Court quashed proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa against an advocate based on a complaint by a party who had never engaged the lawyer’s services. The Court observed that allowing complaints by opposing parties or unrelated persons would undermine fairness and open the door to abuse. It also faulted the Bar Council for mechanically referring the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee without recording reasons or satisfaction that misconduct existed. The Court extended this reasoning to a related case where an advocate had been accused simply for attesting an affidavit. It imposed costs of ₹50,000 on both the Bar Council and the complainant, reinforcing the principle that frivolous or malicious complaints cannot form the basis of disciplinary proceedings.