PROFESSIONAL ETHICS CASE ABOUT DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

 INTRODUCTION
Since the Vedic times, dispensation of justice has been considered a sacred
‘Dharma’. Such dispenser of justice, the king or any of his nominee, used to be one
considered infallible- the integrity personified. The profession of advocacy in India
traces back its history from the colonial period where initially non- qualified people
were allowed to act as advocates this condition changed in the post-independence
era where there were legislations in place regarding the legal profession as to who
were allowed to practice the profession of law.

The Regulation Act, 1772 recognized for first time the legal profession in India.
Thereafter, it was codified in Bengal Resolution-VII of 1793, prescribing the scales
of fees to be charged by the vakils. It was further modified by The Legal
Practitioners Act, 1846 as a subject to regulate both vakils and barristers. The Bar
Council Act, 1926 was passed to unify the Bar in India and to give legal profession
measured autonomy in its affairs wherein the State Bar Councils and the High
Courts were authorised to regulate the admission and the conduct of the advocates
practising in the courts. Finally, the Advocates Act, 1961 replaced the pre-existing
laws and gave autonomy to the Bar Councils of the States. Under the Act, one of
the many functions of the Bar Council of India is to promote legal education and
lay down standards of such education in consultation with the universities,
imparting such education, and Bar Council of the States. It is also required to
maintain high standards in legal profession and discipline in advocates.

Over the years courts have recognized ‘legal service’ as ‘service’ rendered to the
consumers and have held lawyers are accountable to the clients. Ethics in relation
to the profession of law is a code of conduct, written, or unwritten, which prescribes
the duties of legal practitioners and regulates their behaviour, in respect of such
duties. Although character is the essence of every profession but it is the top most
priority for the legal profession. An advocate must abide by the Code of Conduct
as may be prescribed by the bar from time to time like appear in proper dress,
 appear in court on time and not to contempt the decision of the court, not to mislead
court etc.
A professional misconduct on the part of an advocate can be a very serious, this
can be seen from the fact that an advocate can be disbarred for such professional
misconduct i.e. his license for practicing law can be seized for lifetime.
Section 35 of the Advocates Act states that there should be a Disciplinary
Committee under the State Bar Council if after giving a chance of hearing this
committee finds any legal practitioner of any professional misconduct it can take
any of the following actions-
 It can dismiss the complaint if it thinks that it is a petty offence.
 It can reprimand the Advocate, scold him and warn him to never engage in any sort
of misconduct again.
 It can suspend an Advocate for a temporary period of time at its own discretion.
 Remove the name of the advocate from the State roll which will render him unable
to practise law.
Every person owes an obligation to uplift the profession to which he/she belongs.
This obligation is one of the important features that distinguishes his profession
from a trade or business. “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise and so the leaven
of commercial competition or procurement should not vulgarise the legal
profession”. So an advocate should never be a party or privy to anything which he
knows to be wrong. “Cleanliness and purity of thought, words and deeds are as
much necessary in the legal sphere as in the other spheres.
 FACTS OF THE CASE (P.D. GUPTA V. RAM MURTI; 1997) 7 SCC 147.
One Srikishan Dass died on January 5, 1980 leaving behind extensive properties,
both movable and immovable. One Vidya wati claiming to be the sister and the only
legal heir of Srikishan Dass filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian
Succession Act in the court of District Judge, Delhi for grant of probate/letters of
administration to the estate of deceased Srikishan Dass. This she filed in February,
1980. It is not that there was any will. The complainant Ram Murti (who is now
respondent before us) and two other persons also laid claim to the properties of
Srikishan Dass claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three different
wills. They also filed separate proceeding under section 276 of the Indian
succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi. Since there was dispute regarding
inheritance to the properties of srikishan Dass, Vidya Wati also filed a civil suit in
the Delhi High Court for declaration and injunction against various defendants
numbering 23, including the complainant Ram Murti who is defendant no.
This suit was filed on February, 10 1982. Vidya wati had prayed for a decree of
injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into property
bearing No. 4852 Harbans Singh street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from
interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of immovable
properties detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint. She also sought a declaration that
she was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein in the schedule.
P.D. Gupta, advocate who is appellant before us had been her counsel throughout
in all these proceedings. The complaint alleged against him is that though he knew
that there was doubt cast on the right of Vidya Wati inheriting the properties of
Srikishan Dass on account of pendency of various proceedings and further that the
complainant and others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim
to be sister of Srikishan Dass was false yet P.D. Gupta purchase ground floor of
property bearing No. 4858-A 24 Daryaganj from Vidya Wati by sale- deed dated
December 30, 1982. The complainant also alleged that Vidya Wati had been
describing herself either as the real sister, step sister or even half-blood sister of
Srikishan Dass which fact was well known to P.D. Gupta, her counsel. The
grievance of the complainant is as to how an advocate could purchase property
from his client which property is the subject matter of dispute between the parties
in a court of law. During the course of hearing of this appealing was also brought
to our notice that second floor of the property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj
was purchased by Suresh Kumar Gupta son-in-low of the advocate P.D. Gupta Sola
the property purchased by him in November, 1987 for a consideration of Rs.
3,40,000/- in December, 1982. It is pointed out that the facts relating to purchase
of different portions of property No. 4858-A, 24 Daryagnaj and subsequent sale by
P.D. Gupta in buying the property from Vidya Wati in the circumstances aforesaid
who had been describing herself some time as half-blood sister, real sister or even
step-sister of Srikishan Dass. The explanation given by P.D. Gupta is that though
Vidya Wati was step-sister of srikishan Dass but the later always treated her like
her real sister and that is how vidya Wati also at times described herself as real
sister.
There are some more facts which could also be noted. Vidya Wati herself has died
and she is stated to be survived by her only daughter Maya Devi who is also now
dead. Before her death Vidya Wati allegedly executed a will in favour of her
grandson Anand Prakash Bansal who is stated to be the son of Maya Devi
bequeathing all her properties to him. Vidya Wati died on October 26, 1991 and
Maya Devi on April 13, 1992, It is stated that P.P. Bansal has been acting as General
Attorney of Vidya Wati and instructing P.D. Gupta.
In support of his case P.D. Gupta filed affidavit of Anand Prakash Bansal wherein
it is claimed that sale deeds executed by Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and
his son- in low Suresh Kumar Gupta were without any pressure from any one and
were by free will of vidya Wati. P.D. Gupta has claimed that complaint filed by
Ram Murti is motivated and he himself had no title to the properties of srikishan
Dass being no relation of his and the will propounded by him had been found to be
forged as opined by the CFSL\CBI laboratory. The fact that the will propounded
by the court. In the affidavit filed by P.D. Gupta in answer to the complaint of Ram
Murti he has stated that "Lala Srikishan Dass left behind his sister Smt. Vidya Wati
who succeeded to the estate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over the
entire movable and immovable estate. Thereafter the complainant and two other
persons propounded will of Lala Srikishan Dass". This statement of P.D. Gupta has
been verified by him as true and correct to his knowledge. It does appear to us to
be rather odd for a lawyer to verify such facts to his knowledge. It is claimed that
when Srikishan Dass died, subject immovable property was plot bearing No.4858-
A, 24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 sq. feet and the same was got mutated in the name
of Vidya Wati in the records of the Municipal corporation of Delhi and then she
got plan sanctioned from the Municipal corporation of Delhi for construction of the
house on this plot and which she did construct and got completion certificate on
August 28, 1981. It is peculiar, rather astounding, how could Vidya Wati get the
property of Srikishan Dass mutated in her name when she is yet to be granted letters
of administration or declaration to her title.
 FACTS IN SHORT
P.D. GUPTA V. RAM MURTI & OTHERS; (1997) 7 SCC 147.
One Mr. Kishan died on died on 05-06-1980. His sister Vidyawati filed a suit for
declaration of title in her favour for certain properties of the deceased Krishnan,
Ram Murti and others resisted the suit claiming title in their favour. P.D. Gupta
was the advocate of Vidyawati. When suit was pending P.D. Gupta purchased a
part of the disputed property for 180,000 and sold it for 340,000 immediately.

Mr. Ram Murti filed a complaint against P.D. Gupta before the Delhi Bar Council
alleging professional misconduct. The main allegation is that he has purchased the
part of the disputed property from his client during the pendency of the suit.

Since the enquiry was not completed within one year the matter was transferred to
the Bar Council of India. After hearing both the parties, the Bar Council of India
passed an order suspending him from the practising for a period of one year.

Bar Council of India has taken note of the following facts:

1. P.D. Gupta claims to know vidyawati since 1980 when Srikishan

Dass was alive. He knew Vidyawati closely and yet contradictory
stands were taken by Vidyawati when she varyingly described
herself as half-blood sister, real sister or step-sister of Srikishan Dass.
These contradictory stands in fact cast doubt on the very existence of
Vidyawati herself. This also created doubt about bona fides of P.D.
Gupta who seemed to be a family lawyer of Vidyawati.
2. P.D. Gupta knew that the property purchased by him from Vidyawati
was subject matter of litigation and title of vidyawati to that property
was in doubt.
3. House property situated in Daryaganj was purchased by P.D. Gupta
for a mere sum of Rs. 1, 80,000/- in 1982.
4. The agreement for sale of property was entered into as for back on
September 3,1980 and P.D. Gupta had advancing money Vidyawati
from time to time which went to show that as per version of P.D.
 Gupta knew Vidyawati so closely how Vidyawati could take
contradictory stands vis-a-vis her relationship with Srikishan Dass.

Bar Council of India was thus of view that conduct of P.D. Gupta in circumstances
was unbecoming of professional ethics and conduct.

But then again P.D. Gupta filed an appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act
against the order dated May/4/1996 of the disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council of India holding him guilty for the professional misconduct.

 ISSUES
 Whether the act of buying the property in dispute of the client, misconduct on
the part of the Advocate?
 Whether the sentence of one year of suspension disproportionate to his guilt?

 JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court observed that the contention of the Appellant had no basis. The
Court stated “A lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as
well as to the opposite party in the conduct of the case. Administration of Justice is
stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted.
Administration of Justice is not something which concern the Bench only. It concerns
the Bar as well. Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one should be
able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer”.

The act of buying the disputed property in the present case raises serious questions on
his professional conduct and bought disrepute to the administration of justice. Thus,
the decision of the BCI was accepted and reiterated. The appeal of the appellant was
thus dismissed and the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the decision by the Bar
Council of India.
 CASE ANALYSIS
The misconduct has been defined in Black’s Dictionary as transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful
behaviour, improper or wrong behaviour. As it is a known fact that legal profession
is a noble profession the nobility of the legal profession is maintained by the
adherence and observance of a set of professional norms by those who adopt this
profession. But the appellant in this case Mr. P.D. Gupta has clearly violated the ethics
of the legal profession that has to be kept up by those who profess it.

It is a common fact that a disputed property is not to be disposed of while the case is
pending in a court. It is a fact even known to the common people while Mr. P.D.
Gupta is an advocate having all knowledge about the implications that can be caused
by the act of disposing a property which is a subject to the dispute pending the hearing
in the court.

By looking closer to the facts took by the BCI it is evident that P.D. Gupta had no
right to engage in such a deed which indirectly had an impact on his profession. One
of the main inference that should be looked in to is the contradictory stands of his
client Vidyawati who claims to be the “alleged” sister of the deceased Kishan.
Because at times she describes herself as his sister, half-blood sister, step-sister and
so on. So the clarity as to whether she may or may not the deceased’s legal heir is not
available.
Secondly, the appellant advocate knew the property that he is about to purchase is a
subject matter of the litigation so that would amount to more wrong because the
appellant himself was the lawyer representing Vidyawati in that litigation process.

It is the duty of an advocate to carry out legitimate promises made (BCI Rules, Part
VI, Chapter II, Section I, Rule 35) the appellant advocate owes duty to be fair and just
not only to the client but to the third party and the Court. Here by doing this Act the
appellant advocate has brought the process of administration of justice into disrepute
and has done professional misconduct.

Moving on to the sentence of the disciplinary committee of the BCI it is totally

agreeable to suspend the appellant advocate for one year and it is proportionate for
the act he has done because the fundamental of legal ethics is to maintain the honour
 and dignity of the law profession and if one person is found to be guilty of mocking
it then he should face the repercussions following it. Omitting to take action against
the guilty person will invite more misconducts and law is not a child’s play.

In the case Noratanmal Chaurasia v. M.R. Murli the Supreme court has held that
misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but misconduct
envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down
exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline which,
however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether done
or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.

And as said earlier administration of justice is a stream which has to be kept pure and
clean. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of justice is not something which
concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. Bar is the principal Ground for
recruiting judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a
lawyer. While conducting the case, he functions as an officer of the court so he has to
abide by the set of rules and conduct and is responsible to his actions before a Court
of Law.

 CONCLUSION
Lawyers, legal profession and the judiciary as a whole have, through the ages in all
countries, been honoured as the pure foundation of justice, and have enjoyed esteem
and respect in return of their high morality, considerable service of public utility and
the fearless trustworthiness of their clients causes. A lawyer’s profession is meant to
be an honourable or divine profession. Each and every profession at its core has
values, the foremost being professional ethics that must be followed by every
member. However, it is commonly observed that human being in any profession is
susceptible to fallacy. Hence, the act of miscount is quite common and this does not
exclude the profession of advocacy. Misconduct has to be considered with wide
interpretation extending to its meaning under natural law. However, the Advocates
Act, 1961 does not define ‘misconduct’ rather uses the term ‘unprofessional conduct’.

The case in analysis relates to at its core the duty of the advocate to not indulge in
subject matters of dispute for personal gain. A lawyer is a man with great knowledge
of the law and should understand which acts of his could be detrimental and increase
complexity of the suits and disputes at hand. Thus, it is pertinent that a lawyer should
always keep in mind the guidelines of the BCI and also act in an honourable manner
while carrying out his profession. The profession obliges the advocate to uphold rule
of law and support smooth functioning of public justice system. It is integral to have
integrity in abundance and nothing should be done that could erode his credibility.

In all professional roles, an advocate should be meticulous and should be in line with
the requirements of the law. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics is
as unfortunate but more importantly unacceptable.