Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry

The case of Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry highlights the importance of maintaining ethical standards within the legal profession. The respondent’s actions were deemed a serious breach of professional conduct and the court’s decision to permanently suspend him underscores the gravity of such misconduct.

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry reinforces the duty of disciplinary bodies to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and ensure that members adhere to high ethical standards. The Bar Council’s role as a guardian of professional ethics is important in preserving public trust in the legal system.

Decided on: July 26, 2001

Judges: Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas & Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal

Judgement Delivered by: Honorable Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal

Reported: (2001) 6 SCC 1; AIR 2001 SC 2509

Facts of Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry

The respondent, while acting as counsel in a civil suit, wrote a letter to his client, Mahant Rajgiri. In the letter, he mentioned that another client had informed him that the concerned judge accepts bribes and had issued several favourable orders.

He suggested that if Mahant Rajgiri could influence the judge through another person, it would be beneficial; otherwise, he should send Rs 10,000 to ensure a favourable decision through the other client. The letter also stated that if Mahant could personally win over the judge, there would be no need to spend money.

Procedural History

1. Complaint to Bar Council of Rajasthan: A complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent advocate before the Bar Council of Rajasthan, which referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.
2. Respondent’s Defense: The respondent pleaded that the judge’s services were terminated for illegal gratification, claiming he was protecting his client’s interest by informing him about the judge’s propensity for bribery. He asserted no money was sent by his client to him.
3. State Bar Council’s Decision: The State Bar Council, noting the respondent’s admission of the letter’s contents, concluded it constituted misconduct. The council suspended the respondent from practice for two years, effective from June 15, 1997.
4. Appeal to Bar Council of India: The respondent challenged the suspension before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. The committee, by order dated July 31, 1999, enhanced the punishment, striking off the respondent’s name from the roll of advocates, thereby permanently debarring him from practice.
5. Review Petition: The respondent filed a review petition under Section 44 of the Advocates Act. The Disciplinary Committee allowed the petition, modifying the punishment to a mere reprimand on June 4, 2000.
6. Reinstatement of Original Order: The review petition’s allowance led to the revocation of the respondent’s lifetime suspension, reducing the penalty to reprimand.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry were:

• Can the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India review the punishment awarded and deliver a different view on the same set of facts?
• Is the communication to a client that a judge is open to bribery and suggesting that the client should part with money (Rs 10,000) to be passed on to the judge serious misconduct? What punishment should be awarded for such misconduct?
• What is the duty of the Bar Council as a Disciplinary Body?

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry Judgement

Power of Review

The court in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry held that Section 44 of the Advocates Act empowers the Disciplinary Committee to review its order. However, it emphasised that a different decision on the same set of facts is not permitted. The original order was reviewed on non-existent grounds and all factors were already considered by the committee when passing the order dated July 31, 1999.

The court in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry observed that the power of review must be exercised by well-settled principles and the reasons and facts had already been taken into account by the earlier committee. The exercise of the power of review does not empower a Disciplinary Committee to modify the earlier order by taking a different view of the same set of facts.

Serious Misconduct

The court took serious note of the misconduct by the advocate. It questioned how the committee concluded that the respondent “had no intention to bribe the judge” as there was nothing on record to suggest this. The earlier order had considered all relevant factors to conclude that the advocate was unfit to be a lawyer, having written such a letter.

The court in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry upheld the order dated July 31, 1999, which imposed the penalty of permanent debarment, stating that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Members of the legal profession are officers of the court and owe a duty to society, which has a vital interest in the due administration of justice.

Duty of the Disciplinary Committee

The court in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry stated that the disciplinary bodies are guardians of the due administration of justice. They have the requisite power and duty to supervise the conduct of legal professionals and inflict appropriate penalties when members are found guilty of misconduct.

The Bar Council must ensure that lawyers adhere to required standards and take appropriate action against those who fail to do so. The credibility of a council depends on how it deals with cases of delinquency involving serious misconduct. The court emphasised that Bar Councils should be sensitive to actions that may disrepute the profession and uphold the earlier order’s condign penalty.

Restoring the Original Order

The court in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry set aside the impugned order dated June 4, 2000 and restored the original order of the Bar Council of India dated July 31, 1999, permanently suspending the advocate from practising.

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry Case Summary

In the case of Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry, decided on July 26, 2001, the respondent advocate was permanently suspended from legal practice for suggesting his client bribe a judge for a favourable order. The Bar Council of India initially suspended him for two years, but later permanently debarred him.

The respondent’s defence, citing his long-standing clean record and the claim that he was merely responding to his client’s query, was rejected. The Supreme Court upheld the permanent debarment, emphasising that the advocate’s actions constituted serious professional misconduct and underscoring the duty of legal professionals to maintain high ethical standards.