Making Scandalous Allegations Cannot Be Shielded As Advocacy: Supreme Court Upholds Three-Year Suspension of Advocate for Professional Misconduct

In a stern pronouncement reinforcing professional discipline among advocates, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by an advocate against a disciplinary order of the Bar Council of India, holding him guilty of serious professional misconduct. The Court observed that “the appellant-advocate, who appears to be an obstinate character in making scandalous allegations against the respondent-complainant, cannot be shown any leniency.”

Supreme Court not only upheld the three-year suspension imposed on the advocate by the Bar Council but also imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh, directing the Collector, Agra to attach his properties for recovery. The cost was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

“We Do Not Want to Take Any Lenient View”: Supreme Court Sends Strong Signal on Advocates’ Misconduct

This statutory appeal arose under the Advocates Act, wherein the appellant-advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma had challenged the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Bar Council of India, which found him guilty of making scandalous and defamatory allegations against the complainant, Priyanka Bansal.

The Bar Council had suspended him for a period of three years from the rolls of the State Bar Council. The Supreme Court, affirming the decision, dismissed the appeal after hearing both sides, stating:

“Having regard to the serious misconduct carried out by the appellant-advocate... we do not want to take any lenient view.”

The Court further recorded that the conduct of the appellant revealed an “obstinate character” who resorted to scandalous allegations rather than legitimate legal arguments.

The case originated from a complaint lodged by Priyanka Bansal, alleging professional misconduct by advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma. The Bar Council of India, after inquiry, found substance in the allegations, and imposed a three-year suspension on 19th December 2023.

The advocate then approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bar Council’s decision. However, the Apex Court found no error in the findings of the disciplinary authority and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

“Collector to Attach Properties for Recovery of Cost”: Court Orders Coercive Execution for Compensation

In an unusually strong order, the Court imposed ₹1 lakh cost on the appellant and directed that:

“The Collector, Agra is directed to attach the properties of the appellant for recovery of the cost amount, which shall be paid to the respondent (Priyanka Bansal) as compensation within a period of three months.”

This direction gives the compensation amount binding force, enforceable through coercive steps, and indicates the seriousness of the Court's disapproval of the advocate's conduct.

Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered:

“The Bar Council is directed not to renew the license of the appellant without prior permission of this Court.”

This effectively bars the advocate from resuming legal practice even after the suspension unless the Court is satisfied with his conduct post-sentence.

Post-Suspension Compliance Required

The Court also mandated post-suspension compliance, stating:

“After the appellant undergoes the sentence already awarded to him, a Report in that regard shall be supplied to the Secretary General of this Court.”

This condition underscores that the penalty is not merely time-bound but subject to verification of actual compliance and post-penalty conduct.

The decision in Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Priyanka Bansal sends a resounding message that the legal profession demands integrity, discipline, and respect for ethical boundaries. The Court's refusal to entertain the appeal, imposition of costs, direction for property attachment, and requirement of Court approval for license renewal together reflect the zero tolerance stance toward professional misconduct cloaked as legal advocacy.

This judgment stands as a precedent that scandalous attacks, defamatory conduct, and obstinate defiance of ethical rules will be met with firm disciplinary and judicial consequences.

Date of Decision: 12 September 2025