Once The Complaint Is Withdrawn And Allegations Are Resolved, No Disciplinary Action Can Survive: Supreme Court Quashes BCI Order Against Advocate For Alleged Misconduct

“Substratum of the complaint ceases to exist when the client files a sworn affidavit withdrawing all allegations and expressing satisfaction — continuation of proceedings is unwarranted” – Supreme Court

In a significant judgment reinforcing fairness in disciplinary regulation of advocates, the Supreme Court on January 29, 2026, set aside the Bar Council of India’s order that had held a practicing lawyer guilty of professional misconduct despite the complainant-client formally withdrawing the complaint during pendency of proceedings. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that once the complainant expresses unequivocal satisfaction with the advocate’s conduct and retracts the allegations in a duly sworn affidavit, “the very foundation of the disciplinary proceedings collapses.”

Describing the action of the Bar Council of India as one that failed to “consider vital and uncontroverted material,” the Court held:

“The Disciplinary Committee completely glossed over the affidavit wherein the complainant withdrew all allegations and affirmed that the dispute had been resolved. Once the substratum of the complaint ceases to exist, continuation of proceedings becomes untenable in law.”

“Disciplinary Power Is Not Mechanical — It Must Respond To The Factual Reality”: SC Rebukes BCI For Ignoring Withdrawal Of Complaint

The facts of the case were not in serious dispute. The appellant-advocate, Monty Goyal, had been engaged by Navrang Singh (respondent) to file a quashing petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court after a compromise in an FIR lodged under Sections 451, 323, 506, 427, 148, and 149 of the IPC. The High Court allowed the quashing subject to a cost of ₹10,000 being deposited. However, due to delay in depositing the cost, the quashing order was recalled. It was later restored on payment of an enhanced cost of ₹50,000.

Subsequently, the parties settled their differences and the High Court, taking note of the amicable resolution, modified the cost condition and finally quashed the FIR. Importantly, the complainant filed a sworn affidavit dated December 15, 2022, explicitly withdrawing his complaint before the Bar Council and stating that the issue arose from a “misunderstanding” and that he was “fully satisfied” with the advocate’s services.

Despite this, the BCI proceeded to hold the appellant guilty of professional misconduct for allegedly failing to ensure timely compliance with the High Court's order, and imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000 with a further threat of suspension from practice for one year upon default.

“Professional Misconduct Cannot Be Established On Bald Allegations Without Evidence Or Cross-Examination”: SC Enforces Due Process In Disciplinary Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court found that no evidence whatsoever had been led by the complainant during the disciplinary proceedings. He was never examined on oath, and the appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine — a glaring procedural lapse.

“It appears that the appellant-advocate has been held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations contained in the complaint, without the complainant being examined on oath and without affording the appellant-advocate the indefeasible right of cross-examination,” the Court held, rendering the findings of misconduct legally unsustainable.

The Bench noted that proof of professional misconduct cannot rest on assumptions or unanswered allegations, particularly where the complainant has himself expressed full satisfaction and acknowledged that the grievance no longer exists.

“Disciplinary Authority Must Act Judiciously, Not Mechanically”: Apex Court Reasserts Limits On BCI’s Power

Quashing the disciplinary order, the Court made it clear that professional regulation must be exercised within the bounds of natural justice and proportionality, especially when the core of the complaint collapses during proceedings.

“The order of the BCI is wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law,” the Court declared, emphasising that disciplinary actions cannot proceed in a vacuum of evidence, or against the will of the complainant who has voluntarily withdrawn the charge.

The judgment thus restores a balance between the need to regulate the legal profession and the equally compelling need to prevent unfair penalisation of advocates based on resolved misunderstandings.

Supreme Court Restores Advocate’s Reputation, Sets Aside Suspension Threat

By setting aside the impugned BCI order dated April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court not only absolved the appellant-advocate of misconduct but also reaffirmed his right to practice law without the shadow of unjust disciplinary action.

“The genesis of the dispute was a mere misunderstanding regarding deposit of costs, which stood resolved… Once the complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction… the disciplinary proceedings had no reason to continue,” the Court said while allowing the appeal in its entirety.

No order as to costs was passed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: January 29, 2026