Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 75

IV. Amendment Not Necessary

12. Restoration of High Court's jurisdiction not favoured.-

The brief historical survey given above1 shows that the trend of legislation in India has been gradually towards greater autonomy in the field of disciplinary proceedings against members of the legal profession. prima facie, it would be a retrograde step if this trend is reversed and disciplinary jurisdiction is sought to be restored to the High Courts.

If there have been a few isolated instances in which the aggrieved parties are dissatisfied with the action taken by the disciplinary body, that should not be regarded as constituting adequate justification for a change in the law. Such dissatisfaction, assuming that it is justified on the merits of the case, does not necessarily disclose a defect in the machinery of adjudication. However perfect a law, occasions are bound to arise from time to time where the parties concerned may not be totally satisfied with the exercise of powers vested thereunder.

The Advocates Act, 1961 has provided machinery for taking the matter to higher authorities in appropriate cases,2 and obvious cases of injustice could be adequately remedied under the present scheme. The right of final appeal to the Supreme Court ensures that the Supreme Court is not divested of all pOwers for ensuring high standards of professional integrity. The Supreme Court can, in appropriate cases, pass such order as may be called for. In the absence of cogent reasons supported by adequate factual material, necessitating a modification in the present scheme, we do not consider it proper to disturb it.

1. Paras. 7-11, supra.

2. Paras. 5-6, supra; section 38, Advocates Act, 1961.

Disciplinary Jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys