The Supreme Court of India has penalized the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for entertaining frivolous complaints against lawyers, reinforcing the principle that disciplinary forums should not be misused to harass legal professionals.

In a recent case, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the BCMG for pursuing a baseless complaint against an advocate. The court directed that the amount be paid to the lawyer who was subjected to the unnecessary proceedings. The order came while the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the BCMG against a Bombay High Court ruling that had stayed disciplinary action against the advocate.

The controversy originated from a complaint alleging misconduct by the lawyer in connection with consent terms of a civil suit instituted in 1985, where the advocate represented the plaintiff. The complainant alleged fraudulent inclusion of his property in the settlement recorded through consent terms in 2005. The BCMG referred the complaint to its disciplinary committee in July 2023 for further inquiry.

The advocate challenged this referral in the Bombay High Court, which stayed the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court noted that the complainant was not a party to the 1985 suit and had already filed an application to set aside the consent terms on grounds of fraud. The High Court expressed concern about the increasing tendency of litigants to intimidate opposing counsel by filing disciplinary complaints. It concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of misconduct by the advocate and that BCMG had no valid grounds to escalate the matter.

The BCMG then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition (SLP). However, the apex court upheld the Bombay High Court's reasoning, finding the complaint against the advocate devoid of merit, and dismissed the appeal. The Court also ordered BCMG to pay ₹50,000 in costs to the advocate.

In a similar case, the Supreme Court reportedly fined the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa ₹1 lakh for entertaining frivolous complaints against two lawyers. The Supreme Court has cautioned that disciplinary mechanisms exist to preserve the dignity of the legal profession, not to harass lawyers at the behest of disgruntled opponents and underlined that malicious prosecution of advocates at the instance of rival litigants cannot be permitted.

These decisions highlight the Supreme Court's concern over the misuse of disciplinary mechanisms to harass lawyers and its commitment to protecting the integrity of the legal profession. The court's imposition of costs on the BCMG serves as a warning against the pursuit of unsubstantiated complaints and reinforces the importance of ensuring that disciplinary proceedings are based on valid grounds and not used as a tool for intimidation or revenge. The Supreme Court has been flagging the trend of parties lodging criminal cases in civil disputes for expeditious disposal of their grievances.