Observing that people who lodge complaints against lawyers with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) could not be expected to travel all the way to New Delhi when their complaints get transferred to Bar Council of India (BCI), the Madras High Court on Thursday wanted to know if the BCI could conduct sittings in Chennai and other State capitals.
Justices N. Kirubakaran and R. Pongiappan raised the question when a writ petition filed by a complainant to prevent BCTNP from transferring his complaint to the BCI was listed before them for hearing. The judges found that Section 36B of the Advocates Act of 1961 provides for transfer of complaint if the State Bar Council does not dispose it of within a year.
Though the provision had been inserted in the Act through an amendment in 1973 only to ensure that the proceedings on the complaint do not get dragged unnecessarily, “the Bar Councils of the respective States are taking advantage of the said provision and doing injustice to the complainants by transferring their complaints to the file of BCI deliberately.
“Thus, the very purpose of the provision is frustrated. In view of the attitude of the State Bar Councils, Sections 36B of the Advocates Act of 1961 appears to be against the interests of the aggrieved complainants,” the Division Bench said and pointed out the complaint of the present petitioner had been dragged by the BCTNP for nearly three year and not by the complainant.
Finding that such transfer had happened with regard to many other complaints too, the judges restrained BCTNP from transferring any complaint to BCI until the court decides the legal validity of Section 36B of the Act.
