Mr. C. Asok Kumar vs Bar Council Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6796/2026 and CM APPL. 33333/2026, CM APPL.
33334/2026

Date of decision – 18.05.2026

MR. C. ASOK KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Mr. P.
Shankar, Mrs. Lavan Devi J and Mrs.
S. Gomathi Lakshmi, Advocates.

versus

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr Preet Pal Singh, Ms Tanupreet
Kaur, Ms Medha Sharma, Ms Pooja,
Ms Simran Kumari, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition assails the letter dated 09.01.2026 issued by Bar Council
of India, whereby, the petitioner’s statutory appeal preferred under Section
37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was dismissed and the petitioner was advised
to avail remedy under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2. The dispute traces back to grievance of the petitioner arising from the
conduct of two advocates engaged for filing a Review Petition on behalf of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
11:19:49
W.P.(C) 6796/2026 Page 1 of 4

petitioner’s daughter.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Advocate Yashwant Singh
Yadav along with Advocate Anubhav agreed to prepare and file Review
Petition for a profession fee of Rs. 55000/-. In pursuance of the same the
petitioner furnished case documents and paid substantial profession fees. It
is stated that despite repeated assuarances, the draft Review Petition was
allegedly never supplied for filing the Review Petition.
4. According to the petitioner, despite repeated follow-ups the advocates
failed to act with due diligence and subsequently raised objections regarding
non submission of vakalatnama and affidavit. The petitioner submits that
such objections were never communicated earlier and that the delay
ultimately resulted in lapse of the statuory limitation period for filing the
Review Petition.
5. Aggrived thereby, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 35 of
the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of Delhi alleging
professional misconduct. During the disciplinary proceedings, the
concerened advocates filed their reply claiming the documents and the fees
had been returned.
6. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.04.2024 the Bar Council of Delhi
dismissed the complaint on grounds that the fees and documents had been
returned. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal
before the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act,
1961. Vide letter dated 09.01.2026 it was communicated that no appeal
under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was mainatainble and advised
the petitioner to invoke Section 48-A of Advocates Act, 1961.
7. In order to appreciate the controvsery the relevant portion of the order
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
11:19:49
W.P.(C) 6796/2026 Page 2 of 4

dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Bar Council of Delhi is extracted as under -
“ .........Be that as it may, Council is of the view that the prayer of the
Complainant was with regard to fees and the documents, which is
admitted to have been received by the Complainant before the Council.
Council is of view that prima-facie no case of professional or other
misconduct is made out against the Respondents. Hence the complaint
stands dismissed on merits
.”
8. A perusal of the same would indicate that Bar Council of Delhi
dismissed the complaint on the premise that the professional fees and
documents had been returned to the petitioner.
9. Vide letter dated 09.01.2026 the Bar Council of India has made
certain observations. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter is extracted
as under:
“ Sir,
I would like to inform you that the office of the Bar Council of India
pointed out some defects in the petitionwhichwas filedby you as an appeal
U/S37of the Advocates Act, 1961against theOrder/Resolution dated
25.04.2025 in Complaint No. 194/2024 passed in by the Bar Council of
Delhi.
It is to inform you that no appeal lie u/s 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961
against the resolutions/orders passed by the General Council of the State
Bar Council, only Revision can lie u/s 48-A of the Advocates Act. 1961.
Therefore, you are requested to send the following papers/documents: -
1. You have to file Revision Petition supported by an affidavit sworn
before a Notary Public,
Oath Commissioner or a Magistrate. You are required to file English
translation of any regional language documents, if any.
2. The Revision Petition should be filed with the Synopsis, list of dates and
events and Memo of parties.
3. Please supply us your Comphint filed before State Bar Council.
4. The Original impugned order passed by the State Bar Council . ”

10. A bare reading of the aforesaid would indicate that there is no
illegality or perversity. Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically
provides a statutory right of appeal only against an order passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
11:19:49
W.P.(C) 6796/2026 Page 3 of 4

Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. On the other hand, Section 48-A vests revisional
jurisdiction in the Bar Council of India to call for records of proceedings
disposed of by a State Bar Council or any committee thereof in cases where
no statutory appeal lies. Thus, the statutory scheme draws a distinction
between appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 and revisional jurisdiction
under Section 48-A.
11. In the facts of the instant, the impugned order dated 25.04.2025
appears to have been passed by the Bar Council of Delhi and not by the
Disciplinary Committee constituted under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Since the challenge is directed against an order of the Bar Council and not
an order passed by its Disciplinary Committee, the Bar Council of India was
justified in observing that an appeal under Section 37 would not lie and that
the appropriate statutory remedy available to the petitioner would be to
invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act,
1961.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition, along with pending
applications, stands disposed of.
13. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to file a revision as
envisaged under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act.
14. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2026
Aks/ss
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
11:19:49
W.P.(C) 6796/2026 Page 4 of 4