State Bar Council must expeditiously decide complaints of professional misconduct filed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

The petitioner, Dev Malik, was involved in a motorcycle accident in 2022 resulting in the death of a pillion rider

He engaged Respondent No. 2 (Advocate Mayank Jain) to represent him in the resulting criminal case and bail proceedings

It is alleged that Respondent No. 2, without the petitioner's knowledge, handled the criminal case files and facilitated the filing of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) case against the petitioner through his junior, Respondent No. 3

While Respondent No. 2 appeared for the petitioner in the MACT case, his junior simultaneously represented the claimants, leading to a compensation award of Rs. 10,52,500/-

The petitioner alleged professional misconduct and conflict of interest, filing a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, with the State Bar Council (Respondent No. 1)

Seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of this complaint, the petitioner approached the High Court

1. Whether a direction can be issued to the State Bar Council to expeditiously decide a pending complaint regarding professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961

Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which governs the punishment of advocates for professional or other misconduct and empowers the State Bar Council to refer complaints to its disciplinary committee

Principle of statutory obligation, which requires public and statutory bodies to exercise their administrative and quasi-judicial functions within a reasonable timeframe, especially when involving professional ethics and legal licenses

The Court perused the material record regarding the allegations of conflict of interest, specifically that Respondent No. 2 (the petitioner’s defense counsel) and his junior (Respondent No. 3) effectively sat on both sides of the same litigation

The Court observed that Respondent No. 1, as the statutory regulator of legal professionals in the state, is under a clear "statutory obligation" to examine and adjudicate upon complaints of professional misconduct submitted by aggrieved parties

Given the seriousness of the allegations—which involved both a breach of client-attorney privilege and a conflict of interest in an MACT award and execution proceeding—the Court reasoned that a prompt resolution by the Bar Council was necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal profession

It directed Respondent No. 1 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s complaint in accordance with the law, having due regard for the seriousness of the allegations

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions