Facts of the Case:

The complainant is also advocate of High Court and is a senior member of the bar with
33years of experience. On 12 November 1986, at about 1.50p.m when he was going to the bar
association, the respondent-advocate informed him that he had made a mention of a case before
the judge. In the case the complainant represented the petitioner and the respondent represented
the respondent therein in the capacity of a government pleader. Complainant said that he had no
notice of the mention and that “he will see to it”. On this, the respondent somehow got infuriated
and without any reason or justification abused the complainant and used vulgar words. Without any
reason or justification, the respondent insulted the complainant and used the filthy, vulgar and
abusive language against the senior member of the bar. This has lowered the dignity of the
profession and therefore respondent has committed misconduct.

The respondent filed his defence denying the allegations made in the complaint. He
contended that he mentioned a particular case to be posted before the judge and to this the
complainant said that “he will see to it” and menacingly gesticulated. Since the complainant had said
that “he will see” and referred to him, he got angry and there was heated exchange of words
between them, but he never used any abusive language against the complainant. Anyway, he
expressed his deep regret for what all happened between them.

Analysis of the facts:

The issues framed by BCI are:

a. Whether the respondent used abusive language against the complainant?

b. Whether the use of those words amounted to Professional Misconduct?

The S.B.C found both the issues against the respondent and found him guilty of misconduct. The
apology tendered by the respondent was not accepted by the complainant. In the circumstances,
the D.C. of S.B.C. passed order suspending the respondent from practice for a period of six months.

In his evidence that complainant stated that he enrolled himself as an advocate of Madras High
Court and had a good practice. He was a freedom fighter. He has no grudge or grievance against the
respondent and there were no ill feelings. He admitted that he had said but contended he didn’t
warrant use of foul language on the part of the respondent.

As to the incident which took place on the alleged day, respondent said that there was heated
exchange of words and regretted about them if they had hurt the complainant’s feelings in any
manner.

From the records of the case D.C.s of the Bar Council’s came to the conclusion that the
respondent uttered vulgar words against the complainant.

Law made applicable:

In this case the law applicable is Sec. 49(1)(c) of Advocates Act, with reference to the
Standards of Professional C and Etiquette, it has been stated in the preamble that:

“An Advocate shall, at all at times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an
officer of the Court, Privileged member of the community and a gentleman, bearing in mind that
what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the bar in his non-professional
capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. Without prejudice to the generally of foregoing
obligations, an Advocate will shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client and in his conduct
conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and spirit. The rules hereinafter
mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides; yet the specific
mention thereof shall not be constructed as a denial of others equally imperative though not
specifically mentioned”.

Judgement:

D.C. of B.C.I. upheld the order of D.C. of the S.B.C. on misconduct but set aside the
suspension order and reprimanded the respondent under Sec. 35(3)(b) for the offence committed by
him.