Delhi High Court Stays BCI Notice

On February 27 the High Court of Delhi stayed the order of the Bar Council of India directing the Bar Council of Gujarat to conduct an inquiry into Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave. Dave had filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Delhi a day earlier. His petition challenged the order of the Bar Council of India with respect to a complaint filed by Senior Advocate R. P. Luthra. The complaint had alleged that Dushyant Dave was guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of the statements he made in Court regarding Senior Advocate Harish Salve in the Judge Luthra case.

Dave’s petition challenged the order of the BCI on the basis that the order was passed under ‘assumed authority’, which the BCI did not possess. This was because the Senior Counsel was enrolled with the Gujarat Bar Council, and therefore, under the Advocates Act, the State Bar Council would be the authority to institute proceedings as well as pass orders to that effect. He also alleged that the complaint did not follow the prescribed format under the Rules to the Advocates Act and that the BCI did not call for a reply from him.

Though the press release from the BCI had mentioned that notice had been served to Dave, his petition alleges that he had not received any notice. On this basis, he challenged the actions of the BCI as being ‘legal malice’ meaning that actions were taken in excess of jurisdiction without any justification nor ‘reasonableness’. This, he alleged was in violation of Article 14 – the right to equality. That the order restricted Dave from carrying out his profession, was alleged to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) – the right to freedom of profession.

The prayer sought relief by way of a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ to quash or set aside the order of the BCI. As well as to declare that the BCI had no power, authority or jurisdiction to pass the order which it did. He also sought a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition to restrain the BCI or the State Bar Council from proceeding in furtherance of the BCI’s order.