The Bombay High Court noted that it has "unfortunately become fashionable" for one party's litigants to file complaints with the Bar Council against opposing lawyers in court. He further stressed that this practice must be "outdated in all circumstances".
The court bench consisting of Judges GS Patel and Neela Gokhale said: “The opposing attorneys have obligations to their own clients. They have obligations to the court, like all lawyers. They have no obligation to defend the other's cause. The persistent threat of disciplinary complaints against opposing counsel was in fact used in some cases before us to intimidate and intimidate opposing counsel, and to ensure that the opponent did not obtain adequate or appropriate legal representation.
The trial is hearing a complaint filed by a senior government official, Geeta Shastri, to the Supreme Court challenging disciplinary proceedings against her based on the litigant's complaint. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) was approached with a complaint by a barrister turned barrister who alleges that Shashtri committed forgery and perjury by placing signatures on several documents attached to an affidavit.
However, the court found no basis for the claim against Shastri. "We see no form of misconduct, let alone any misconduct that requires investigation of any kind," the bench said.
In the 10-page order, the judiciary also emphasized its concern for the rights of lawyers at the Bar. “We perceive our role as judges quite differently. We don't just settle this or that dispute. We are also concerned about the standards at the Bar Association and we are also concerned that the interests of lawyers are harmed in no small part due to some fanciful notions that a litigant may have. The consequences of such action on the lawyer's life and career and the resulting mental and emotional trauma are almost indescribable," the bench said.
Shastri referred the Court through Attorney Akshay Shinde saying that in a lawsuit against the state government, a written statement was filed along with several documents attached. The documents were signed in copies by another government attorney. Shastri, meanwhile, signed the annexed statement. Lawyers opposed to the state government protested the "carbon copy mark" and accused Shastri of perjury and forgery.
Shastri responded by saying it was a "practice" followed by the Supreme Court by order of the court. Not satisfied with this explanation, the lawyer filed a complaint with the Bar Association of Maharashtra and Goa.
BCMG. After BCMG issued an order to initiate disciplinary proceedings to open an investigation, Shastri went to the Supreme Court to challenge the same. On March 24, 2023, the division's bench upheld the indictment against Shastri.
