Union of India and Ors. Vs. Gulshan Bajwa
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No…. D.No. 10465/2003
in Civil Appeal No. 10383 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.95 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P.No. 245 of 1986)
in Civil Appeal No. 10383 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.95 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P.No. 245 of 1986)
Petitioner: Union of India and Ors.
Respondent: Gulshan Bajwa
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No…. D.No. 10465/2003
in Civil Appeal No. 10383 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.95 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P.No. 245 of 1986)
in Civil Appeal No. 10383 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.95 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P.No. 245 of 1986)
Judges: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 04, 2003
Appearances:
In-person for the Petitioner
Head Note:
ADVOCATES LAWS
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 35 – Misconduct – Advocate on record filing review petition after losing appeal – Baseless allegations and insinuations reflecting conduct of judges of Supreme Court – No contempt proposed. Matter referred to Bar Council of India for necessary action. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. We have carefully perused the review petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, but we find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
2. Having regard to the allegations and insinuations contained in the review petition, there is justification for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the petitioner. However, considering his background as is apparent from the record of the case and the apparent frustration caused to the petitioner as a result of his losing his appeal before this Court, we do not propose to initiate any action under the said Act, since the respondent has preferred the review petition in-person.
3. However, we notice that the petitioner is an advocate and is practicing as an advocate-on-record in this Court. The conduct of the petitioner in filing a review petition containing such baseless allegations and insinuations reflecting on the conduct of judges of this Court does call for closer scrutiny, as to whether his conduct does not amount to professional misconduct. It appears to us that his conduct does no credit to the noble profession to which he belongs. However, since that matter is not within our jurisdiction and it is only the Bar Council of India which is empowered to take appropriate action, we refer this matter to the Bar Council of India for such action as it may consider appropriate. The registry is directed to forward to the Bar Council of India a complete set of papers including the letter of the petitioner addressed to the registrar (judicial) dated 9th June, 2003 and the office reports to enable the Bar Council of India to take such action as it may consider appropriate.
1. We have carefully perused the review petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, but we find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
2. Having regard to the allegations and insinuations contained in the review petition, there is justification for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the petitioner. However, considering his background as is apparent from the record of the case and the apparent frustration caused to the petitioner as a result of his losing his appeal before this Court, we do not propose to initiate any action under the said Act, since the respondent has preferred the review petition in-person.
3. However, we notice that the petitioner is an advocate and is practicing as an advocate-on-record in this Court. The conduct of the petitioner in filing a review petition containing such baseless allegations and insinuations reflecting on the conduct of judges of this Court does call for closer scrutiny, as to whether his conduct does not amount to professional misconduct. It appears to us that his conduct does no credit to the noble profession to which he belongs. However, since that matter is not within our jurisdiction and it is only the Bar Council of India which is empowered to take appropriate action, we refer this matter to the Bar Council of India for such action as it may consider appropriate. The registry is directed to forward to the Bar Council of India a complete set of papers including the letter of the petitioner addressed to the registrar (judicial) dated 9th June, 2003 and the office reports to enable the Bar Council of India to take such action as it may consider appropriate.
