SUBJECT -: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

SUBJECT CODE -: LAW 512

COURSE/BATCH-: BBA.LLB (H) / (SEM-07)
GROUP MEMBERS -:
1. ARYAN DAS (ENROLL NO. A90821521010)
2. NISHTHA BHOSALE (ENROLL NO. A90821520042)
3. SAYAK KR. DUTTA (ENROLL NO. A900821521009)
4. ARPIT TIWARI (ENROLL NO. A90821521037)
SUBMITTED TO: - PROFESSOR. ROHIT TIWARY

Case Analysis of Shambhu ram Yadav v/s Hanuman das Khatri:

Professional Misconduct Case For Suggesting Client To Bribe
Judge
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV …. PETTITIONER
VS
HANUM DAS KHATRY …. RESPONDENT

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED: ADVOCATES ACT, 1961,

SECTION 35, 44
CASE NO.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6768 OF 2000
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT
CASE FILED ON: OCTOBER 16, 2000
CASE DECIDED ON: JULY 27, 2001
JUDGES: JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS, JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWA
 INDEX

S.L NO CONTENTS
1. ACKNOWLEGEDMENT
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
3. ISSUES RAISED
4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
5. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED
6. JUDGEDMENT
7. BIPLIOGRAPHY
ACKNOWLEGEDMENT-:
First and foremost, We are deeply grateful to my professor, [Rohit Tiwary sir],
whose expertise, insights, and constructive feedback were instrumental in
shaping the direction of this project. Their dedication and encouragement
inspired me to delve deeper and maintain a high standard of work. I am also
thankful to my university “AMITY UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL KOLKATA”
for their support and for providing a conducive learning environment. The
resources and opportunities made available by them been essential to the
completion of this project by us. Lastly, we are grateful to all those who, directly
or indirectly, contributed to the success of this project. This project has been a
valuable learning experience, and I appreciate all the assistance that has made
it possible.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE -:
➢ In this particular instance, a complaint was lodged against the advocate with the Bar
Council of Rajasthan and subsequently referred to the Discipline Committee,
established by the State Bar Council. The complaint alleged that the advocate, who was
representing a party in a civil suit, wrote a letter to his client, Mahant Rajgiri, in which
he mentioned that another client had informed him that the presiding judge in the case
accepts bribes and issues favorable judgments in his favor. Consequently, the advocate
requested Rajgiri to send a sum of Rs. The cost is 10,000/-. Should he possess the ability
to influence the judge directly, there is no necessity to dispatch the aforementioned sum
for the judge's benefit.
➢ The State Bar Council observed that the respondent advocate admitted the contents of
the letter, acknowledging it as constituting professional misconduct. As a result, the
Council suspended him from practice for a duration of two years, commencing from
June 15, 1997. The respondent advocate has contested this matter with the Bar Council
of India. By an order dated July 31, 1999, the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council
of India, consisting of three members, increased the penalty and decreed that the
respondent's name be removed from the roster of advocates, consequently permanently
disqualifying him from practicing law. The respondent filed a review petition under
section 44 of the Advocates Act against the order dated July 31, 1999. The review
petition has been accepted. The earlier decision of the committee has been revised,
resulting in the revocation of his lifetime suspension. He has now been reprimanded
instead. The review petition is granted, taking into consideration the following
observations:
➢ A perusal of the letter reveals that the petitioner merely responded to the inquiry made
by their client regarding the behavior of the judge. It is evident that the delinquent
advocate did not make an attempt to bribe the judge.

ISSUES RAISED-:
The issues raised in Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatri were:
1) 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?
2) 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?
3) What is the duty of the Bar Council as a Disciplinary Body?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Appellant -: Appellant argued that the previous order cannot be altered by the disciplinary
committee when determining a review petition. Thus, the disciplinary committee has made a
mistake in its judgment. It is also asserted that the disciplinary bodies serve as guardians of the
proper administration of justice. They possess the necessary authority and an obligation to
oversee the behavior of legal professionals, and to impose suitable sanctions upon those who
are determined to have engaged in misconduct.
Respondent -: Responded referred to disciplinary committee and from the said quotation it is
evident that the advocate was simply given a reply to the query put by his client regarding the
conduct of the judge and as such it remained a fact that it was not an offer on the side of the
advocate to bribe a judge. Further, he argued that he has joined the profession since 1951 and
has past clean record in the legal profession.

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE-:

The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 35 Punishment of advocates for misconduct:- Where on receipt of a complaint or
otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty
of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary
committee. The State Bar Council has the authority to withdraw a proceeding pending before
its disciplinary committee, either on its own initiative or upon an application submitted by any
concerned individual, and may instruct for the inquiry to be conducted by a different
disciplinary committee under that State Bar Council. The disciplinary committee of a State Bar
Council is required to schedule a hearing date for the case and ensure that a notice is served to
the involved advocate as well as to the Advocate-General of the State. The disciplinary
committee of a State Bar Council, after providing the advocate in question and the Advocate-
General with an opportunity to be heard, is authorized to issue any of the subsequent directives:
▪ Dsmiss the complaint or, if the proceedings were instigated by the State Bar Council,
instruct that the proceedings be terminated;
▪ reprimand the advocate;
▪ temporarily suspend the advocate from practicing for a duration deemed appropriate;
▪ expunge the advocate's name from the State roll of Advocates. Where an advocate is
suspended from practice under clause (c) of sub-section (3), he shall, during the period
of suspension, be debarred from practicing in any court or before any authority or
person in India. Whereas any notice is issued to the Advocate-General pursuant to
subsection (2), the Advocate-General is permitted to present themselves before the
disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council, either personally or through a
representative attorney. In this section, namely sections 37 and 38, the terms "Advocate-
General" and "Advocate-General of the State" shall refer to the Additional Solicitor
General of India when pertaining to the Union territory of Delhi.
Section 44 Review of orders by disciplinary committee:The disciplinary committee of a Bar
Council may, either on its own initiative or otherwise, review any order issued under this
Chapter within sixty days of its issuance. However, any decision for review by the disciplinary
committee of a State Bar Council must be sanctioned by the Bar Council of India in order to
be enforceable. Please rewrite this text in a formal manner and include line breaks where
necessary.

JUDGEDMENT-:
The following judgement was passed by the suprem court
✓ Power of Review -: The court in the case of Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das
Khatry determined that Section 44 of the Advocates Act confers authority upon the
Disciplinary Committee to reassess its decisions. It underscored the notion that an
alternate verdict based on identical circumstances is prohibited. The initial order was
reassessed on nonexistent grounds, and all relevant factors had already been evaluated
by the committee during the issuance of the order dated July 31, 1999. The court in the
case of Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry observed that the power of
review must be exercised according to well-established principles, and the reasons and
facts considered by the previous committee had been taken into account. The exercise
of the power of review does not authorize a Disciplinary Committee to alter the
previous order by adopting a contrasting perspective on the identical set of facts.
✓ Serious Misconduct -: The court noted with gravity the misconduct displayed by the
advocate. The inquiry was directed towards the basis on which the committee
determined that the respondent "had no intention to bribe the judge", given the absence
of any documented evidence supporting this conclusion. The prior ruling carefully
analyzed all pertinent aspects to determine that the solicitor was unsuitable to practice
law, considering the content of the said letter. The court in the case of Shambhu Ram
Yadav vs. Hanuman Das Khatry upheld the order dated July 31, 1999, which imposed
the penalty of permanent debarment. It was asserted that the severity of the punishment
should correspond with the seriousness of the misconduct. Members of the legal
profession are officers of the court and have an obligation to society, which holds a
crucial stake in the proper administration of justice.
✓ Duty of the Disciplinary Committee -: The court, in the case of Shambhu Ram Yadav
vs Hanuman Das Khatry, asserted that disciplinary bodies serve as protectors of the
proper administration of justice. They possess the necessary authority and responsibility
to oversee the behavior of legal practitioners and impose suitable sanctions upon
individuals proven to have engaged in misconduct. The Bar Council must ensure that
lawyers adhere to the required standards and take appropriate action against individuals
who fail to comply. The credibility of a council relies on its handling of cases of
delinquency that entail severe misconduct.The court highlighted the importance for Bar
Councils to be mindful of behaviors that could tarnish the reputation of the profession,
and to enforce the appropriate penalty as decreed in the previous order.
✓ Restoring the Original Order -: The court in the case of Shambhu Ram Yadav vs
Hanuman Das Khatry nullified the challenged decree issued on June 4, 2000, and
reinstated the initial ruling of the Bar Council of India from July 31, 1999, which
entailed the permanent suspension of the advocate from legal practice.
CONCLUSION
Members of the legal profession are officers of the court and subject to the rules imposed in
regulation to the practice therein. Besides courts they also owe a duty to the society which has
a vital public interest in the due administration of justice. The said public interest is required to
be protected by those on whom the power has been entrusted to take disciplinary action. The
present case held advocate responded guilty of a serious misconduct by writing to his client the
letter suggesting to give bribe to judge and corrupting the system and considering the nature of
the misconduct the penalty of permanent debarment had been imposed on the advocate
responded. The credibility of a council including its disciplinary body in respect of any
profession whether it is law, medicine, accountancy or any other vocation depends upon how
they deal with cases of delinquency involving serious misconduct which has a tendency to
erode the credibility and reputation of the said profession. The punishment, of course, has to
be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
BIPLIOGRAPHY - :
❖ INDIAN KANOON
❖ CASE MINES
❖ SSC ONLINE
❖ HTTPS://MAIN.SCI.GOV.IN
❖ ADVOCATES ACT 1961
❖ LEGAL JOURNALS OF DELHI UNIVERSITY