ગેરવર્તન બદલ એડવોકેટ એક્ટ ની કલમ ૩૫ ચુકાદા સાથે – વકીલ છો તો જાણી લેજો.

Section 35 � Punishment Of Advocates For Misconduct

વકીલ શ્રી ની ગેરવર્તન બાબતે બાર કાઉન્સિલ તેમની સામે સિસ્ત ભંગ ન પગલાં લઈ શકે છે. ખોટી તારીખો…ખોટું વર્તન..ખોટી કેપિસિટી..પ્રોફેશનલ મિસ્કંડક ..વકીલ શ્રી કોર્ટ માં ઓફિસર છે એટલે તેમને કોર્ટ નું ડેકોરમ જાળવવું તેમની ફરજ માં આવે છે. જો તેમ ના કરે તો સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટ એ નીચે મુજબ માં ચુકાદા માં કલમ ૩૫ મુજબ પગલાં લેવા કહેલ છે.

In the case, Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali:
the Supreme Court explored the amplitude and extent of the words �professional misconduct� in Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The facts of the case involved an advocate (appearing as a litigant in the capacity of the respondent, and not an advocate in a rent control proceeding) assaulted and kicked the complainant and asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case.

The main issue in this case was whether the act of the advocate amounted to misconduct, the action against which could be initiated in the Bar Council, even though he was not acting in the capacity of an advocate.

It was upheld by the Supreme Court that a lawyer is obliged to observe the norms of behavior expected of him, which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as an officer of the Court. Therefore, in spite of the fact that he was not acting in his capacity as an advocate, his behavior was unfit for an advocate, and the Bar Council was justified in proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against him.

It may be noted that in arriving at the decision in the case, the Supreme Court carried out an over-view of the jurisprudence of the courts in the area of misconduct of advocates, reiterated that the term �misconduct� is incapable of a precise definition. Broadly speaking, it envisages any instance of breach of discipline.

It means improper behavior, intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard of behavior. The term may also include wrongful intention, which is not a mere error of judgment. Therefore, �misconduct�, though incapable of a precise definition, acquires its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of duty.

In N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shind, where the advocate of one of the parties was asking for continuous adjournments to the immense inconvenience of the opposite party, it was held by the Supreme Court that seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who were present without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of the duty that an advocate owed to the Court, amounting to misconduct.