The Supreme Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), imposing a total ₹1 lakh in costs for dragging two lawyers into baseless disciplinary proceedings.
The cases involved advocates Rajiv Narula and Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, both of whom were caught in complaints the Court found entirely without merit. In one instance, the complainant was also hit with an additional ₹50,000 fine for filing a frivolous charge.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed both petitions, calling them “devoid of merit.”
In Narula’s case, the complaint claimed he mishandled settlement terms in a 1985 civil suit, asserting that property had been fraudulently included in the agreements. Narula countered that he had no professional relationship with the complainant and had only identified a party in the settlement. The Bombay High Court had previously stayed the proceedings.
The Supreme Court found the complaint malicious and the Bar Council’s actions “cryptic and laconic,” lacking any real reasoning. The Court emphasized that disciplinary action for professional misconduct requires a genuine legal relationship between advocate and complainant—absent in this case—and imposed ₹50,000 costs in Narula’s favor.
Shastri’s ordeal arose from a complaint claiming that by identifying the deponent of an affidavit and certifying certain documents, she became liable for offences including forgery and perjury. The High Court had already dismissed the claims as baseless. The Supreme Court reinforced that view, noting the complaint appeared to be motivated by spite rather than substance. Both Shastri and the Court were vindicated, with ₹50,000 costs awarded to her and the same amount levied on the complainant and BCMG.
In delivering its verdict, the Court sent a clear message: frivolous and malicious complaints against legal professionals will not be tolerated, and the mechanisms of disciplinary action cannot be weaponized without merit.