Supreme Court Converts One-Year Suspension to Warning for Advocate's Conduct in Court Premises

A Division Bench replaces a Bar Council suspension with a warning, holding that indecent behaviour in court premises attracts misconduct even when directed at an opposing party.

The Supreme Court has set aside a one-year suspension imposed by the Bar Council of India on advocate Sudhendu Prakash Gautam and replaced it with a formal warning. The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar disposed of Civil Appeal No. 7171 of 2012 on 30 July 2026, more than two decades after the underlying incident. The Court accepted that the appellant had not been given a proper hearing before the Bar Council, yet declined to remand the matter, citing the passage of 21 years since the complaint was filed. In its place, the Court issued a warning and laid down a broader proposition: a lawyer's indecent conduct anywhere inside court premises — whether directed at an opponent, a client, or a party on the other side — is a proper subject of disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Incident and the Complaint Before the Bar Council

The roots of the dispute go back to 2005. The respondent, S.L. Chaudhary, had filed a case before the Labour Court at Karkardooma, Delhi, presided over by Ms. Deepa Sharma (AJJ). Sudhendu Prakash Gautam appeared as counsel for the opposite party, M/s Recon Copier System Private Limited.

On a date when the respondent's application was dismissed by the Labour Court, the respondent alleged that the advocate caught him by the collar inside the court premises — specifically in a toilet — beat him, abused him, and threatened to kill him. The advocate also allegedly pressured him to withdraw the complaint he had filed, threatening that he would be “removed from this world and will forget to enter in the Court.”

The respondent lodged police complaints with the Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 28 April 2005 and 18 August 2005. He then filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi on 30 August 2005. The complaint was eventually taken up by the Bar Council of India as Transfer Case No. 118 of 2008.

The Bar Council Proceedings: Dismissal, Recall, and Suspension

The Bar Council of India initially dismissed the complaint on 24 October 2009. The reason was narrow: since the advocate was appearing for the opposite party and not for the complainant, no case of professional misconduct in the course of proceedings was made out.

The complainant filed a review petition. By order dated 9 July 2011, the Bar Council recalled the earlier dismissal and directed fresh hearing on notices to both parties. The matter was listed on 7 July 2012.

When the case was called on 7 July 2012, the appellant moved an application for adjournment. The Bar Council refused it and proceeded to hear the matter the same day. By order dated 21 July 2012, the Disciplinary Committee allowed the complaint and suspended the appellant from practice for one year.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. By an interim order dated 15 October 2012, the Supreme Court stayed the suspension order; it was never put into effect.

The Court's Findings on Hearing and Delay

The Court accepted the appellant's submission that he was not heard properly when his adjournment application was refused on 7 July 2012. The prayer had been refused, and the matter was decided the same day without affording the appellant a meaningful opportunity.

Despite this, the Court said it was not inclined to remit the matter to the Bar Council of India. The reason was plain: almost 21 years had elapsed since the complaint was submitted to the Bar Council of Delhi in 2005. Sending the proceedings back at this stage would only prolong a dispute that had already run its full course in time, even if not in substance.

The Substantive Holding: Conduct in Court Premises

The Court addressed the core legal question that the Bar Council of India had initially sidestepped in 2009. The Disciplinary Committee had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the advocate was not the complainant's counsel — he was opposing counsel — and therefore there was no professional misconduct in the conduct of proceedings.

The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning as the complete picture. It held that the absence of a solicitor-client relationship with the complainant did not insulate the advocate from disciplinary action for what occurred inside the court premises. The allegation of misconduct, the Court said, did not rest on how the advocate conducted the case before the Labour Court. It rested entirely on his behaviour inside the court building on the day of the incident.

The Court stated the governing principle directly: every lawyer has a duty to act decently in court premises — not only towards his own clients but also towards lawyers appearing from the other side and towards the parties against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behaviour inside the court premises can be taken cognizance of by the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India, and a complaint cannot be thrown out merely because the misconduct was not directed at one's own client or did not occur in the course of proceedings in the courtroom itself.

At the same time, the Court noted that the criminal aspect of the incident had already been brought to the attention of the police. As far as the criminal conduct was concerned — the assault and threats — the Bar Council had no separate role. What remained for disciplinary purposes was the conduct of a lawyer inside court premises, and that was sufficient to attract jurisdiction.

Outcome

Taking the full factual position into account — the nature of the incident, the absence of any allegation touching the conduct of proceedings inside the courtroom, the lapse of 21 years, and the fact that the suspension had in any event never been given effect to — the Court modified the Bar Council of India's order. Instead of a one-year suspension, the Court issued a formal warning to Sudhendu Prakash Gautam that he shall always behave properly in court premises while dealing with the lawyer on the opposite side, his own client, and the party on the opposite side as well.

The Civil Appeal was disposed of accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of. The order is reportable.