- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.39418 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: PRABHU S YATNATTI SON OF LATE. SHIVAPPA YATNATTI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.4375/1, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI TALUK, BELAGAVI - 590 001 &PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANT L.KANAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA NO.21, ROUSE AVENUE INTUITIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 110 002 2. THE CHAIRMAN DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.III, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. SUBHASH R SON OF RAMANNA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT RAMEWADI VILLAGE, KHANAPUR TALUK, BELAGAVI - 591 254 REP. BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KUMARI MALLAMMA, R/AT RAMEWADI VILLAGE, KHANAPUR TALUK, BELAGAVI - 591 254 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANUBHA SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY SET-ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2023(BEARING NO.67/2022) PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.III, THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, BENGALURU I.E., RESPONDENT NO.2 PASSED IN DCE NO.67/2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE - E) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: <Wherefore, under the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners above named prays that this Hon9ble Court be pleased to: a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ deemed appropriate by set-aside impugned order dated 17.06.2023 (bearing No.67/2022) passed by the Disciplinary Committee No.III, The Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru i.e., Respondent No.2 passed in DCE No.67/2022 (vide ANNEXURE- E); b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ deemed appropriate by set-aside Judgment dated 09.06.2025, passed by the Disciplinary Committee, The Bar Council of India, New Delhi i.e., Respondent No.1 passed in DC Appeal No.42/2023 (vide ANNEXURE - F); c) a writ of mandamus or any other writ deemed appropriate directing the Respondent No.2 to re-admit the Petitioner in the State Roll of Advocates and permit the Petitioner to practice in the court of law; and d) Grant such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a practicing advocate having enrolled as an advocate in the year 1998. The respondent No.3 had filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the same was referred to the disciplinary committee No.III i.e. respondent No.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the complaint was given on 16.11.2021, the Bar Council has passed an order on 17.06.2023 i.e. after 1 year 7 months. Thereafter, the petitioner has carried this matter to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of India has affirmed the order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council vide order is dated 17.06.2023 and the Disciplinary Committee No.III of the Bar Council of India had passed an order on 09.06.2025 affirming the order of the State Disciplinary Committee. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961. Basing on the above provision, it is submitted that they have to conclude the proceedings within 1 year, or else, the matter shall be transferred to the Bar Council of India, whereas in this case, an order is passed after 1 year 7 months. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 has no jurisdiction and when the matter was carried to the Bar Council of India, without looking at the scope of Section 36B, the Bar Council of India has affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. Hence, it is submitted that in the light of Section 36B, where an order is passed without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that as per Section 38 of the Advocates Act against an order passed by the Bar Council of India, the appeal lies to the Supreme Court. As such, the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. 5. In response to that, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when an order is passed without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in fact, restricting his prayer to the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. As such, the writ petition is maintainable. 6. He has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Achal Saxena (Dead) and Another Vs. Sudhir - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 Yadav reported in (2017) 13 SCC 657. He has relied on paragraph Nos.7 and 11, which reads as under: "7. After considering the arguments of both sides at length, we are of the opinion that the appellate authority (the Bar Council of India) has rightly held that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council could not have continued with the inquiry after expiry of one year from the receipt of the complaint and therefore, the order passed on 23-12-2006, by the Disciplinary Authority of the State Bar Council was illegal. 11. The appellate authority has also found that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council did not offer an opportunity of hearing to the respondent including to cross-examine the witnesses, which was fatal and caused serious prejudice to the respondent in his defence during the inquiry. These findings recorded by the appellate authority, in our opinion, do not warrant any interference. In other words, the appellate authority was justified in allowing the appeal preferred by the respon-dent; and for setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council." 7. Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the writ petition is maintainable. Alternatively, it is also submitted that he will restrict his prayer only to the order passed by the State Bar Council. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 8. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil vs. Bar Council of Gujarat and Another arising out of Civil Appeal No.8307 of 2015 dated 06.04.2017 wherein at paragraph Nos.22, 27 and 42, it is held as under: <22. Thus, the question, as posed earlier, fundamentally centres around the jurisdiction of the BCI. As is discernible from the language employed in Section 36B(1), the transfer takes place by operation of law. There is a further command to BCI to dispose it off as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for enquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 36. Thus, the jurisdiction for conducting the enquiry and disposal of the complaint is conferred on the BCI by the mandate of the Act. The context, the intention and the purpose is clear as crystal. The BCI is required to exercise original jurisdiction that was to be exercised by the State Bar Council. 27. The aforesaid authorities give stress on textual interpretation that would match context and further to explore the intention of the legislature. The authorities further emphasise the words have to be understood regard being had to the purpose behind it and hence, the concern with the intention is basically to decipher the meaning of the word that the legislature has placed on it. When the language employed under Section 36B(1) and Section 36 are read in juxtaposition, there remains no scintilla of doubt that the legislature desired that the disciplinary proceedings are to be put an end to within a particular time frame by the State Bar Council and if that is not done, the whole thing gets transferred to the BCI, which is obliged to cause an enquiry. Thus understood, there can - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 be no trace of doubt that the original jurisdiction to deal with the complaint stands transferred to the BCI. Once the original jurisdiction is transferred, to rely upon the language that the BCI may dispose of would include any manner of disposal which would include a remand, cannot be thought of. That is neither the legislative intendment nor the legislative purpose. The legislature, as we find, never intended a complaint made against an Advocate either from the perspective of the complainant or from the delinquent to be transferred to BCI, again to be sent back. 42. Once a complaint is made by a litigant, it has to follow a definite procedure and is required to be dealt with as per the command of the Act to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council. On many an occasion, it has come to the notice of this Court that disciplinary authority of the State Bar Council is not disposing of the complaint within the stipulated period, as a consequence of which the proceeding stands transferred to the BCI. The responsibility to deal with the disciplinary proceedings is cast on the State Bar Council which constitutes its disciplinary committee. Every member of the Disciplinary Committee is aware that the proceeding has to be concluded within one year. The complainant and the delinquent advocate are required to cooperate. Not to do something what one is required to do, tantamount to irresponsibility and the prestige of an institution or a statutory body inheres in carrying out the responsibility. One may not be always right in the decision but that does not mean to be shirking away from taking a decision and allow the matter to be transferred by operation of law to the BCI. A statutory authority is obliged to constantly remind itself that the mandate of the statute - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 is expediency and the stipulation of time is mandatory. It will not be erroneous to say that the Disciplinary Committee is expected to perform its duty within a time frame and not to create a blameworthy situation. It is better to remember offering an explanation to one9s own conscience is like blaming everything on <accident=. When duties are given by law, duties are required to be performed.= 9. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in K.Anjinappa Vs. K.C.Krishna Reddy and Another arising out of Civil Appeal No.7478/2019 dated 17.12.2021 wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 9 and 12, it is held as under: <7. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate and Chairman of the Bar Council of India, who is also present during the hearing, has fairly conceded that State Bar Councils have to dispose of the complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within a period of one year. He has stated that the Bar Council of India shall issue necessary instructions to the respective State Bar Councils in exercise of power under Section 48B of the Advocates Act directing all State Bar Councils or any Committee thereof to dispose of the complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within a period of one year positively and without fail and if for any valid reason(s), the State Bar council is not able to dispose of the complaint(s) within a period of one year, then along with the reasons to be recorded as to why the said complaint(s) could not be disposed of within a pe-riod of one year, the said complaint be transferred to the Bar - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 Council of India as per Section 36B of the Advocates Act. 9. We also do not approve and appreciate the delay on the part of the respective State Bar Council(s) in not disposing the complaint(s) within a period of one year. As per Section 36B of the Advocates Act, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council have to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and in each case the proceeding shall have to be concluded within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case may be. Failing to dispose the complaint within a period of one year, such complaint is required to be transferred to the Bar Council of India for its disposal as if, it was a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under sub- section (2) of Section 36. Therefore, disposal of a complaint received by the State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory and the concerned State Bar Council(s) have to dispose of such complaints as expeditiously and in each case the proceeding shall have to be concluded within a period of one year. Only in an exceptional case, by giving valid reasons to be recorded as to why the complaint could not be disposed of within a period of one year, such complaints are required to be transferred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act. Therefore, the transfer of the complaint(s) received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act from the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India is an exception. However, for reasons best known to the concerned State Bar Councils, the complaints are not being disposed received by them under Section 35 within one year. This may be because the complaints are filed against the fellow Advocates and they would not like to displease the Advocates against whom the complaints are made. There could also be some valid reasons for not disposing of the complaint(s) within a period of one year. But for the same, the reasons have to be assigned/ recorded as to why the complaint(s) could not be disposed of within a period of one year. In many cases, the complaints are deliberately kept pending for more than one year, so that the same shall be transferred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, by passing the buck so to say. 9.1 It is the duty of the Bar Council of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 India/State Bar council to improve its functioning on the disciplinary side. This Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 had occasion to consider the object and purpose of enactment of the Advocates Act; role of Bar Council of India/State Bar Councils as well as the role of lawyers. In paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 33 and 44, it is observed as under:- <15. The Advocates Act has been enacted pursuant to the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee made in 1953 after taking into account the recommendations of the Law Commission on the subject of the reforms of judicial administration. The main features of the Bill for the enactment of the Act include the creation of autonomous Bar Council, one for the whole of India and one for each State. The Act has been enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of the Bar Council and an All India Bar. 16. The legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is a noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society. The independence of the Bar and autonomy of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preserve the very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remains strong. Where the Bar has not performed the duty independently and has become a sycophant that ultimately results in the denigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannot be existence of a strong judicial system without an independent Bar. 17. It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in the struggle for independence of the nation. They have helped in the framing of the Constitution of India and have helped the courts in evolving jurisprudence by doing hard labour and research work. The nobility of the legal system is to be ensured at all costs so that the Constitution remains vibrant and to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 expand its interpretation so as to meet new challenges. 25. The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain the high standard. His duty is to the court, to his own client, to the opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counsel also. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class of the society and a member of the noble profession, the expectation from him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society. People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put their signatures wherever asked by a lawyer. An advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice is delivered to his cause. 26. The high values of the noble profession have to be protected by all concerned at all costs and in all the circumstances cannot be forgotten even by the youngsters in the fight of survival in formative years. The nobility of the legal profession requires an advocate to remember that he is not over attached to any case as advocate does not win or lose a case, real recipient of justice is behind the curtain, who is at the receiving end. As a matter of fact, we do not give to a litigant anything except recognising his rights. A litigant has a right to be impartially advised by a lawyer. Advocates are not supposed to be money guzzlers or ambulance chasers. A lawyer should not expect any favour from the Judge and should not involve by any means in influencing the fair decision-making process. It is his duty to master the facts and the law and submit the same precisely in the court, his duty is not to waste the courts' time. 33. The legislature has reposed faith in the autonomy of the Bar while enacting the Advocates Act and it provides for - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 autonomous Bar Councils at the State and Central level. The ethical standard of the legal profession and legal education has been assigned to the Bar Council. It has to maintain the dignity of the legal profession and independence of the Bar. The disciplinary control has been assigned to the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Councils of various States and the Bar Council of India and an appeal lies to this Court under Section 38 of the Act. 44. The Bar Council has the power to discipline lawyers and maintain nobility of profession and that power imposes great responsibility. The court has the power of contempt and that lethal power too accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is a weapon like Brahmastra to be used sparingly to remain effective. At the same time, a Judge has to guard the dignity of the court and take action in contempt and in case of necessity to impose appropriate exemplary punishment too. A lawyer is supposed to be governed by professional ethics, professional etiquette and professional ethos which are a habitual mode of conduct. He has to perform himself with elegance, dignity, and decency. He has to bear himself at all times and observe himself in a manner befitting as an officer of the court. He is a privileged member of the community and a gentleman. He has to mainsail with honesty and sail with the oar of hard work, then his boat is bound to reach to the bank. He has to be honest, courageous, eloquent, industrious, witty and judgmental.= In the aforesaid decision, this Court also further observed in paragraph 85 as under:- <85. Soul searching is absolutely necessary and the blame game and maligning must stop forthwith. Confidence and reverence and positive thinking is the only way. It is pious hope that the Bar Council would improve upon the function of its Disciplinary Committees so as to make the system more accountable, publish performance audit on the disciplinary side of various Bar Councils. The same should - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 be made public. The Bar Council of India under its supervisory control can implement good ideas as always done by it and would not lag behind in cleaning process so badly required. It is to make the profession more noble and it is absolutely necessary to remove the black sheep from the profession to preserve the rich ideals of the Bar and on which it struggled for the values of freedom. It is basically not for the Court to control the Bar. It is the statutory duty of the Bar to make it more noble and also to protect the Judges and the legal system, not to destroy the Bar itself by inaction and the system which is an important pillar of democracy. 12. Sub-section (3) of section 36 of the Advocates Act states that the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India in disposing of any case under section 36 shall observe as far as may be the pro-cedure laid down in section 35 the references to the Advocate General in that section be considered as references to the Attorney General of India." 10. Relying on the above judgments, it is submitted that the writ petition is maintainable. 11. The memo is filed stating that the notice is served on the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3. None appears on their behalf and no vakalath is filed on their behalf. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 12. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. 13. Before dealing with the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to look at Section 36B and Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which reads thus: "36B. Disposal of disciplinary proceedings.-(1) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of the complaint received by it under section 35 expeditiously and in each case the proceedings shall be concluded within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, failing which such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India which may dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 36. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where on the commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973 (60 of 1973), any proceedings in respect of any disciplinary matter against an advocate is pending before the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council, that disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of such commencement or within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or, as the case may be, the date of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, whichever is later, failing which such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India for disposal under sub-section (1).] - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 38. Appeal to the Supreme Court.-Any person aggrieved by an order made by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under section 36 or section 37 [or the Attorney- General of India or the Advocate-General of the State concerned, as the case may be,] may, within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court may pass such order [(including an order varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India)] thereon as it deems fit: [Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.]" 14. When an order is passed by the State Bar Council, the petitioner has availed the remedy under Section 37 that is appeal to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of India has affirmed the order passed by the State Bar Council. It is the contention of the petitioner that when an order is passed without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. There is no dispute with the said proposition. Coming to the facts of the case, as per the remedy available to the petitioner under the Advocates Act, when he has preferred an appeal under Section 37 to the Bar Council of India and when the Bar Council has - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 affirmed the order of the State Bar Council, then under Section 38, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. 15. The submission of the petitioner that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court or alternative submission that he is not pressing on the second prayer i.e. the order of the Bar Council of India also does not stand for the legal scrutiny. When the party as per the remedy available under the statute assailed an order passed by the primary Authority before an Appellate Authority, which has confirmed the order of the Primary Authority, it is not open to the party to say that he is not aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Authority, but he is only questioning the order of the Primary Authority. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the clear provisions under the Advocates Act, the order needs to be assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgments that are relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18067 WP No. 39418 of 2025 ORDER (i) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the Honb'le Apex Court. (ii) The petitioner shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. (iii) All pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC/PB List No.:1 Sl No.: 10