Appeal under Section 37 of Advocates Act lies only against Disciplinary Committee orders, not State Bar Council resolutions.

The petitioner alleged professional misconduct against two advocates who were engaged to file a Review Petition on behalf of the petitioner’s daughter but failed to do so despite receiving professional fees

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD)

On 25.04.2024, the BCD dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the fees and documents had been returned to the petitioner

The petitioner then filed a statutory appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act before the Bar Council of India (BCI)

On 09.01.2026, the BCI informed the petitioner that his appeal was not maintainable under Section 37 and advised him to file a revision under Section 48-A instead

The petitioner subsequently challenged this BCI communication via the present writ petition

1. Whether an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is maintainable against an order passed by the General Council of a State Bar Council as opposed to its Disciplinary Committee

2. Whether the Bar Council of India was justified in directing the petitioner to seek a remedy under the revisional jurisdiction of Section 48-A of the Advocates Act, 1961

Section 37 provides a statutory right of appeal only against orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council under Section 35

Section 48-A grants the Bar Council of India revisional jurisdiction to review records of proceedings from a State Bar Council or any of its committees in instances where no statutory appeal lies

The court examined the nature of the BCD's order dated 25.04.2024 and observed that it was passed by the Bar Council of Delhi itself, rather than a Disciplinary Committee constituted under Section 35

The Court reasoned that since the statutory scheme of the Advocates Act draws a sharp distinction between Section 37 (Appellate) and Section 48-A (Revisional) jurisdictions, the nature of the body passing the order determines the remedy

Because the impugned order was a resolution of the State Bar Council and not its Disciplinary Committee, the BCI correctly identified that the appellate route under Section 37 was unavailable

Therefore, the BCI's communication dated 09.01.2026 suffered from no illegality or perversity

The Court held that the appropriate statutory remedy for the petitioner is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48-A of the Advocates Act, 1961

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a revision under Section 48-A, with all rights and contentions left open